M/S Arvind Brothers Thr. Partner Kishore Amrutlal Harsora vs. The Addl. Joint Commissioner And Ors

Held

The Court held that the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 regarding the right to occupy the premises and consequently the validity of the GST registration at that address involves disputed questions of fact. Such complex factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court found it appropriate for the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the designated officer (Respondent No. 1) under the CGST/MGST Acts. The representation should clearly outline the petitioner's grievances and specific prayers. The designated officer is directed to hear both parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, considering only issues relevant to the GST registration under the respective Acts. Respondent No. 3 is permitted to file a reply. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. The Court did not decide the merits of the GST registration dispute.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Arvind Brothers, filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the GST registration of Respondent No. 3, which was registered at the petitioner's premises. The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 had no legal right to occupy or utilize the premises and therefore no right to avail GST registration at that address. This dispute arose from a private matter concerning the petitioner's premises let out to Respondent No. 3. The petitioner had previously filed a civil suit, which was rejected, and an appeal against that rejection is pending. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to cancel the GST number and prevent coercive action against the premises or the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the rights between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 concerning the occupation of premises and the validity of GST registration based on that address? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 lacks a subsisting legal right to occupy the premises and consequently cannot avail GST registration at the petitioner's address. They sought direct intervention from the High Court to cancel the GST number and prevent any action against them based on Respondent No. 3's registration. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue/State respondents regarding the GST registration itself. However, the Court's observation implies that the core issue involves disputed facts between private parties, which is not the domain of writ proceedings for direct adjudication.