The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam government to pay more than ₹10 lakh in admitted vehicle hire charges to a businessman whose vehicle was engaged by the Guwahati Police for official purposes after the vehicle owner obtains registration under the Goods and Services Tax law and submits the prescribed documents.
The bench of Justice Devashis Baruah has observed that the petitioner appeared to be entitled to the admitted amount of ₹10,03,396. At the same time, the Court noted that the petitioner was required to obtain registration under the applicable GST provisions and submit the necessary documents before payment could be made.
Buy Now: 150 + Judgments On GST – E-Compilation For August 2026
The petitioner stated that he earned his livelihood by operating a vehicle bearing registration number AS-12-W-6718. According to him, the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, had hired the vehicle for official purposes from April 1, 2023, to May 20, 2025.
Payments were initially made for two billing periods. The petitioner received ₹1,56,748 for the period between April 1 and June 30, 2023, and ₹1,69,326 for the period from July 1 to September 30, 2023.
However, no payment was allegedly made for the subsequent period beginning October 1, 2023. The petitioner claimed that he had submitted bills amounting to ₹10,26,168 for the period ending May 20, 2025, but the amount was not released.
It was submitted before the High Court that the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Police on several occasions and was assured that the outstanding dues would be paid. Despite those assurances, the bills allegedly remained unpaid.
The petitioner subsequently submitted a representation on October 9, 2025, seeking the release of the amount. As no payment followed, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the alleged inaction of the authorities.
The High Court had issued notice in the matter on November 10, 2025, and directed the respondents to place their stand on record through an affidavit.
In its affidavit-in-opposition filed on June 10, 2026, the Commissioner of Police stated that the petitioner was entitled to ₹10,03,396 and not the claimed amount of ₹10,26,168. According to the authorities, seven hire charge bills aggregating to ₹10,03,396 had been received during the relevant period.
The authorities maintained that the petitioner had made an excess claim of ₹22,772. They further stated that certain documents required for processing the bills had not been submitted, including an updated GST 3B form, declaration certificate and driving licence.
Although some of the bills reportedly mentioned that documents such as the driving licence had been enclosed, the authorities claimed that those documents were not available with the bill records. The petitioner was consequently asked over the phone to furnish the missing documents.
The affidavit stated that the petitioner had informed the authorities that he was out of station and would submit the documents after returning to Guwahati. The bills, therefore, could not be processed for want of the required supporting records.
The authorities also referred to instructions received from the Assam Police Headquarters that no proposal concerning vehicle hire charge bills would be accepted unless all the prescribed documents were found to be in order. They nevertheless assured the Court that the bills would be processed once the petitioner furnished the missing documents.
Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent authorities to pay ₹10,03,396, or the amount remaining after applicable statutory deductions, to the petitioner.
The Court made the disbursement conditional upon the petitioner obtaining registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and producing his GST registration number, driving licence and declaration certificate before the authorities.
The entire exercise must be completed within six months from the date on which a certified copy of the judgment is served upon the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, along with the petitioner’s GST registration certificate and the other required documents.
The High Court clarified that the six-month period would begin only after all these documents, together with the certified copy of the judgment, are submitted to the Commissioner of Police.
It further directed that if any amount had already been paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ proceedings, it must be adjusted while disbursing the outstanding dues.
The writ petition was consequently disposed of with these directions.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
