Smt. N.Bharathi vs. The Vice Chairman And Managing Director

Held

The High Court, in the interest of justice, disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the 3rd respondent within two weeks. This representation should address the waiver of license fees during the COVID-19 period, considering guidelines in G.O.No. OPD & AD 2/2020 dated 09.10.2020. The 3rd respondent was directed to consider this representation objectively, referencing circulars G.O.No. OPD & AD 2/2020 dated 09.10.2020 and Circular No. 01/2021-OPD(C) dated 06.01.2021, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks. Pending consideration, coercive steps for eviction were stayed. The court did not definitively rule on the legality of the demand or the applicable GST rate but facilitated a process for resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, a stall lessee at Mangalagiri Bus Station, challenged a notice dated 06.01.2021 issued by the 1st respondent (impliedly the authority issuing the notice, likely related to the bus station management). The notice demanded payment of license fees and other charges for the lockdown and subsequent period, including penal interest and GST. The petitioner argued that she could not conduct business during the COVID-19 lockdown and had previously represented against the 18% GST demand, suggesting it should be 5% or waived. She also sought waiver of license fees for the lockdown period. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare the notice illegal and arbitrary and to restrain coercive steps for her dispossession from DOT Stall Nos. 1 and 2.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for license fees, penal interest, and GST for the period of lockdown due to COVID-19, during which the petitioner could not conduct business, is illegal and arbitrary, turning on the principles of natural justice and contractual obligations. 2. Whether the rate of GST demanded (18%) is applicable to the petitioner's lease, or if a lower rate (5%) is applicable, or if waiver is permissible, concerning the interpretation of GST provisions and relevant government circulars. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the demand for license fees and charges for the lockdown period was illegal and arbitrary as no business was conducted. She also argued that the 18% GST was not applicable, and a 5% rate should apply, or the fee should be waived. She relied on the fact that the Central Government declared a lockdown, preventing business operations. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state. However, the impugned notice was issued by an authority representing the bus station management, which is the 3rd respondent.