Facts of the Case

This is not a GST decision — it is a payment dispute between a works contractor and a state industries body, governed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, in which GST invoices were referenced only as incidental evidence of work executed. The petitioner, ABM Electricals, an electrical contractor, had carried out electrification work at the CFC (Common Facility Centre) at Malabar Furniture Consortium, Kannur, under an agreement dated 19.04.2018 and a supplementary agreement dated 15.01.2019, with a completion certificate issued on 07.03.2019. Alleging non-payment of admitted dues for the completed work, the petitioner had filed a complaint (Ext.P7) before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Kerala, which remained undecided. The petitioner filed WP(C) No.29512 of 2021 seeking a direction to the Facilitation Council and to the Malabar Furniture Consortium to release the admitted payment. The matter was heard and decided on 22.08.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a mandamus could be issued directing release of the disputed payment directly, or whether the appropriate course was to direct the statutory Facilitation Council to decide the pending complaint.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had completed the electrification work as certified, and GST had duly been paid on the value of the work (evidenced by GST invoices), but payment for the completed work had not been released despite a pending complaint before the MSEFC.
  • During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner clarified that the petitioner would be satisfied if the Council was directed to consider the pending complaint (Ext.P7) within a time frame.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader was heard, but the order does not record any specific defence on the merits of the payment claim; the matter was disposed of on the limited relief actually pressed by the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Kerala High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 7th respondent (MSEFC-Kerala) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending complaint (Ext.P7) within 60 days from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
  • The Court did not itself determine whether the payment was actually due, or its quantum — that determination was left to the Facilitation Council.

Important Clarification

This order does not decide the payment dispute; it merely compels the statutory Facilitation Council to take up and decide the pending complaint within a fixed timeline. Contractors facing payment delays under MSME facilitation proceedings can seek similar time-bound directions from a High Court when their complaint has been left pending without action.

Sections Involved

  • Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 — Facilitation Council mechanism for delayed payments
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 (writ of mandamus)

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with a direction favourable to the Petitioner to the extent that the Facilitation Council was directed to decide the complaint within 60 days; the underlying payment dispute was not decided on merits by this Court.

Case Details

High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam | WP(C) No.29512 of 2021 | Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan | Date: 22 August 2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.