1 2025:CGHC:50883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3371 of 2019 1 - M/s S. Kumar Associates A Proprietorship Firm, Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Smt. Priya Agrawal, W/o Sanjay Agrawal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o G.S. Compound, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited A Mini Ratna Company, Through Its General Manager, South Eastern Colafields Limited, S.E.C.L. Bishrampur Area, Post Office, Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager Operations, S.E.C.L. Bishrampur Area, Post Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Area Finance Manager Bishrampur Area, Post Officer Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, senior advocate with Shri Shashwat Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vaibhav Shukla & Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocates ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 13/10/2025 Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition – i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue 2 writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, quashing the impugned order dated 27/07/2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Area Finance Manager, Bishrampur Area and letter dated 30/07/2019 issued by the General Manager (Operations) SECL Bishrampur Area and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to release the dues of the petitioner firm in respect of the contract awarded to the petitioner firm in respect of the NIT and the work order dated 20/09/2017 (Annexure P/3). ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner by way of instant writ petition is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30/07/2019 passed by the General Manager (Operations) Bishrampur Area as well as the order dated 27/07/2019 issued by the Area Finance Manager, Bishrampur Area whereby the authorities have withheld the final payment of the contract, already completed by the petitioner on 12/09/2018. The impugned order dated 27/07/2019 has been issued inter alia on the allegations that the SECL is not in a position to release any amount to the party against their dues till the settlement of the dispute regarding service tax with Joint Commissioner CED Government of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the abovestated relief. He submits that there was some dispute regarding payment of service tax by the respondent / SECL and therefore, the amount which the petitioner was entitled to receive from the respondents was withheld from the year 2019 to 2025. The dispute with regard to service tax has been set at rest on an appeal filed by the respondents before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on 25/04/2025. He submits that after the appeal of the respondents with regard to dispute of service tax was allowed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was paid the amount which it was entitled to receive from the respondents on 09/09/2025. He further submits that though the petitioner was entitled to receive the said amount, but the same could not be paid for almost 6 years causing loss of interest to the petitioner on account of some 3 dispute of service tax of the respondents. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Mass Communications (P) Ltd., (2003) 11 SCC 17. He submits that for seeking interest on the said amount, the petitioner has moved a representation on 17/09/2025 which is filed with the application for taking documents on record. He further submits that for the present, this writ petition may be disposed off directing the respondents to take decision on the representation so made by the petitioner with regard to payment of interest. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the entire amount which was claimed by the petitioner has already been paid. The delay was not attributed to the respondents as some dispute with regard to service tax was going on which was ultimately settled by the Tribunal vide its order dated 18/04/2024. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any interest. 5. Be that as it may, for the present, the prayer of learned senior counsel for the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to take decision on the representation so made, this Court find it appropriate accede to the prayer so made. Therefore, at this stage, this petition is disposed off. It is expected that the respondents shall take a decision on the representation dated 17/09/2025 made by the petitioner with regard to interest within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of production of copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. With this observation, this petition is disposed off. All pending applications are also disposed off. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.15 17:17:19 +0530