M/S Somany Ceramics LTD Bahadurgarh vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. It directed respondent No. 5 to take a decision on the petitioner's letter/reminder dated October 30, 2018, in accordance with the law. This decision was to be made by passing a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court mandated that this process should be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must decide pending representations within a reasonable time, following due process of law, including providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party.

Facts

M/s Somany Ceramics Ltd. (the petitioner), a registered dealer in Haryana, manufactures ceramic tiles and related products. For manufacturing, it uses Natural Gas supplied by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Gas Authority of India Ltd. to generate power. Following amendments to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the petitioner sought statutory declarations in Form C and Form D-1 from respondent No. 5 (presumably a tax authority) for the purchase of Natural Gas for the period July 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018. The petitioner submitted a letter/reminder on October 30, 2018, but received no response. The non-issuance of these forms led the selling dealer to charge interest, prompting the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking a mandamus to issue the forms and adjudicate the letter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue statutory declarations in Form C and Form D-1 for the purchase of Natural Gas for use in the manufacture of goods for sale, for the period from 1.7.2017 to 30.9.2018, under the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it had submitted a letter/reminder dated October 30, 2018, along with necessary documents to respondent No. 5, seeking the issuance of Forms 'C' and 'D' for a non-GST product. However, no action had been taken on its request, leading to the charging of interest by the selling dealer. The petitioner sought a direction for the issuance of these forms and adjudication of its pending request. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents. The Court proceeded to dispose of the petition based on the petitioner's submissions and the record before it.