Baddam Samara Simha Reddy vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Baddam Samara Simha Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondents in addressing the alleged illegal conduct of Respondent No. 7, an association. Respondent No. 7 allegedly imposed traffic penalties and unlawfully levied GST on these penalties. The petitioner was issued a demand of Rs. 2,360 by Respondent No. 7, comprising a Rs. 2,000 penalty and Rs. 360 GST, which the petitioner disputed via emails and WhatsApp in December 2025. The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of proper signage, speed limit notifications, and a valid speed measurement system, and alleged violations of natural justice. The petitioner paid the disputed amount under protest on February 11, 2026, and subsequently submitted a representation to the Joint Commissioner (State GST) on February 16, 2026, requesting an inquiry into the legality of the imposition and collection of GST on penalties by Respondent No. 7.

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated February 16, 2026. This consideration must be done after affording an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 7, which includes a personal hearing and appearance. The Court did not decide on the legality of the penalties or the GST levy, nor did it make any findings on the alleged financial mismanagement. The primary decision was to ensure the petitioner's representation is duly considered by the relevant authorities after following due process, including hearing the party against whom the allegations are made. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 7 in imposing traffic penalties and levying GST thereon is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently, whether the respondents ought to be directed to inquire into the affairs of Respondent No. 7 and take action as per relevant statutes? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and the authority to levy GST). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 7 lacks the authority to impose traffic penalties and collect GST on such penalties. The petitioner contended that the demand was made without proper statutory backing, proper signage, or a valid speed measurement system, and that principles of natural justice were violated. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to inquire into the illegal actions of Respondent No. 7. Revenue/State's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation.