A.Mareppa vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated April 26, 2021, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also directed the respondent-authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner until the representation was disposed of. The reasoning was based on the prevailing pandemic situation and the need to address the petitioner's pending representation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for extension or the validity of the demand for fees, focusing instead on procedural fairness and immediate relief. The issue of whether the respondents' action was arbitrary and illegal was implicitly addressed by directing the consideration of the representation. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in detail, as the primary focus was on the administrative action of the respondents regarding the license.

Facts

The petitioner was the successful bidder for a cycle stand space, with a license period from May 22, 2017, to May 21, 2021. The license fee was structured for different periods. Physical possession was handed over on June 1, 2017. The petitioner made a representation on December 18, 2017, for additional space, which was not considered. Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the petitioner experienced no business from March 22, 2020, to October 31, 2020. Despite this, the respondents issued a notice on November 13, 2020, demanding license fees of Rs. 62,035/-, which the petitioner paid. Subsequently, the respondents insisted on further payment of Rs. 18,497/- towards license fee, GST, and other charges. The petitioner submitted a representation on April 26, 2021, for an extension of the license period, but the respondents issued an advance notice to close the business. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this action and seeking an extension of the license.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in issuing an advance notice to close the petitioner's business, without considering the petitioner's representation for an extension of the license period, is arbitrary and illegal, particularly in light of the business disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic? The petitioner argued that the respondents had not considered his representation for an extension of the license period, which was expiring on May 21, 2021. He contended that initiating coercive steps without addressing his representation would cause irreparable loss. The petitioner relied on the facts that his business was severely impacted by the pandemic lockdown, and he had already paid the demanded license fees despite the lack of business. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader and Standing Counsel, submitted that they had accommodated the petitioner and others considering the pandemic situation. They denied the allegations made by the petitioner in his affidavit.