M/S Merve Nanjappagowda Lokesh vs. Executive Engineer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Merve Nanjappagowda Lokesh, a Class I contractor, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner's grievance was the non-consideration of their representations dated August 27, 2021. These representations sought some relief concerning the payment of GST, particularly in light of the transition period. The petitioner argued that the officials had a constitutional duty under Article 350 to consider these representations, which had not been discharged. The petitioner subsequently gave up one of their prayers, which was dependent on the outcome of the consideration of the representations. The respondents, represented by the Executive Engineers and Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd., opposed the petition, stating that the factors provided in the representations were insufficient for a decision.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-consideration of their representations was valid. While the respondents argued that the representations were insufficient, the Court found merit in the petitioner's offer to submit a comprehensive representation with supporting documents. The Court directed the petitioner to file such a comprehensive representation. Upon filing, the respondents were mandated to consider it in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly kept all contentions of both parties open for future consideration, meaning the merits of the GST relief claim were not decided. The operative direction was to ensure the representations were considered within a period of three months from the date of filing the comprehensive representation. No specific GST provisions were discussed or interpreted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have a duty to consider the petitioner's representations dated August 27, 2021, concerning GST payment relief during the transition period, as per Article 350 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that Article 350 of the Constitution casts a duty on officials to consider representations, and this duty had not been discharged by the respondents, necessitating intervention by the writ court. The petitioner also offered to submit a more comprehensive representation with supporting documents. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that the factors provided in the petitioner's representations were 'frugal' and insufficient for them to make a reasonable decision. They contended that no relief could be granted based on the existing submissions.