2023 (1) TMI 633 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of mandamus commanding to respondents authorities to not to compel the petitioner from depositing further amount in pursuance to the allotment letter - seeking grant of mandamus commanding to respondents authorities to issue fresh allotment letter after removing the discrepancy in the allotment letter dated 277.2021 and further direction be issued to Mandi Samiti NOIDA to accept the premium amount in easy installment - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that the shop in question has been allotted in favour of the petitioner in an open auction wherein Rs.78.78/- lacs has been offered by the petitioner on its own. After acceptance of the bid of the petitioner as highest bid in the open auction, it is not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the premium, which is 50% to the total bid amount. The consequential charges of 18% GST on the premium amount (which is 50% of the total bid amount as per the offer of the petitioner) also cannot be challenged. As regard the user charges, the same has been demanded as per the terms of the same agreement signed by the petitioner. It is not open for the petitioner to challenge the terms and conditions of the agreement signed by it - Even otherwise, the agreement signed by the petitioner has not been brought on record. This not a fit case for grant of mandamus - petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Challenge to the demand for depositing further amount in pursuance to the allotment letter.
2. Demand for issuance of a fresh allotment letter after removing discrepancies.
3. Validity of premium amount, GST charges, and user charges as per the agreement.
4. Allegation of contravention of Regulations framed by the Mandi Samiti.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief from depositing further amounts as per the allotment letter. The respondent Mandi Samiti demanded Rs.42,14,571/-, including premium, GST, and user charges. The Court noted that the petitioner participated in an open auction and offered Rs.70.78/- lacs, which was accepted. The Court held that challenging the premium amount, GST charges, and user charges after winning the bid is not permissible, especially when these charges are in line with the agreement terms.

2. The petitioner also requested a fresh allotment letter due to discrepancies. However, the Court found that the user charges were demanded as per the agreement signed by the petitioner. Since the agreement was not challenged or presented in court, the Court deemed it inappropriate to grant the mandamus relief sought by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner alleged that the premium and user charges demanded by the respondent were in contravention of the Regulations framed by the Mandi Samiti. The Court, after examining the terms of the agreement and the petitioner's participation in the auction, concluded that the charges were in accordance with the agreement terms. The Court emphasized that the petitioner cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the agreement it willingly signed.

4. The Court highlighted that the petitioner did not provide any evidence or statement showing that the user charges demanded were beyond the agreement's terms and conditions. The respondent Mandi Parishad's actions were found to be within the framework of the agreement signed by the petitioner. As a result, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not a suitable case for granting mandamus relief based on the facts presented.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the premium amount, GST charges, and user charges demanded by the respondent Mandi Samiti, as they were found to be in accordance with the agreement terms signed by the petitioner during the auction process.

← Previous Next →