Sheik Mujeep Rahman vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Sheik Mujeeep Rahman, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus. The petitioner alleged that the third respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer-I, Kodaikanal Assessment Circle, had recovered GST in excess of the actual tax liability for the assessment period April 2023 to March 2024. The excess recovery was made from the petitioner's bank account on 20.11.2025 and 27.01.2026 via demand drafts. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 09.03.2026 to the respondent authorities requesting a refund of this excess amount. The respondents, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner's representation would be considered in accordance with law.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the third respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer-I, Kodaikanal Assessment Circle. The direction was to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This consideration and order were to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. The Court did not make any specific finding on whether the GST amount recovered was indeed excess, nor did it delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for refund. The operative direction was to ensure the representation is processed. No costs were ordered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to refund the excess GST amount recovered from the petitioner's bank account for the assessment period April 2023 to March 2024, based on the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2026. The petitioner argued that excess GST was recovered from their bank account and sought a refund through a writ of mandamus. The petitioner relied on their representation dated 09.03.2026 as the basis for their claim. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not dispute the petitioner's claim on merits. Instead, they submitted that the petitioner's representation would be considered in accordance with law within a timeframe to be fixed by the Court.