M/S. Yagnesh Virat Regencyand Restaurant vs. The Tsrtc Rep.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained due to the absence of a common cause of action among the petitioners. The affidavit filed in support of the petition did not establish a shared grievance or legal basis for a joint challenge. When this deficiency was pointed out, the petitioners' counsel could not demonstrate a common cause of action. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition on this procedural ground. The petitioners were advised that they were at liberty to file separate writ petitions if they had individual causes of action. No decision was made on the substantive issue of whether GST was legally leviable on the license fees.

Facts

The petitioners, who hold licenses to carry on businesses, trades, and vocations, filed a writ petition challenging the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the license fees. They contended that this levy violated the terms of the licenses granted to them. The respondents are the authorities responsible for levying the tax. The writ petition was filed collectively by multiple petitioners. However, during the hearing, it was noted that the affidavit did not specify a common cause of action among the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to articulate one. The court pointed out this lack of a common cause of action.

Key Issues

1. Whether there is a common cause of action amongst the petitioners to maintain a joint writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, concerning the levy of GST on license fees. Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in levying GST on license fees as illegal and arbitrary, asserting it violated the terms of their licenses. They implicitly argued for a common cause of action by filing a joint petition. Revenue/State: The respondents, represented by learned Standing Counsel, did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the GST levy. However, the court's dismissal was based on the procedural ground of a lack of common cause of action, implying no argument was made by the revenue on the substantive issue of GST applicability.