Anil Kumar Patodi vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was the handling agent for M/s Ultra Tech Cement and that the 2nd respondent had communicated on 02.08.2018 about the difficulty in tracing old records and the time it would take. While the issuance of this communication was not denied, the Railways disputed the competency of the issuing officer. The Court noted the Railways' contention that records are preserved for only three years, making documents older than that difficult to furnish. In light of these circumstances, the Court held that it was open for the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, seeking the duplicate receipts for the relevant period. The competent authority was directed to consider this representation in light of prevailing circulars and pass appropriate orders within four weeks of receiving the representation. The Court did not decide on the petitioner's entitlement to the documents or the GST liability.

Facts

The petitioner, a handling agent for M/s Ultra Tech Cement, is seeking duplicate railway receipts for coal transportation services rendered between 2012 and 2018. The petitioner requires these documents to submit to the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, who issued a notice for verification of service tax liability for the period 2013-2018. The petitioner claims to have paid charges directly to the Railways. The 2nd respondent, LTC siding, South Central Railways, informed the petitioner on 02.08.2018 that furnishing the requested receipts would take three to five months due to the difficulty in tracing old records. The petitioner's grievance is that the delay in receiving these documents prevents them from responding to the GST intelligence notice, potentially leading to coercive recovery steps. The Railways, represented by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, argued that the petitioner is not a direct contractor, that records are preserved only for three years, and that duplicate receipts are forbidden by Railway guidelines.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the 2nd respondent (LTC siding, South Central Railways) to furnish duplicate railway receipts for the period 2012-2018, considering the petitioner's claim of direct payment of charges and the need for these documents to respond to a GST intelligence notice. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that they are a subcontractor who paid charges directly to the Railways and that the principal contractor is not providing the necessary documents. They rely on Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989, for the admissibility of information furnished by railway authorities as evidence. They seek a direction for the expeditious furnishing of all available documents. Revenue/State's arguments: The Railways argue that the petitioner is not a direct contractor and that M/s Ultra Tech Cement paid all applicable charges. They state that record copies of railway receipts are preserved only for three years, making it difficult to furnish documents older than that. They also contend that the petitioner misrepresented the purpose for seeking the documents and that the officer who issued the letter dated 02.08.2018 was not the competent authority. Furthermore, they cite Para 1458 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, Volume II, which forbids the issuance of duplicate railway receipts.