Independent Power Producers Association Of INDIA vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's explanation for not disclosing the previous writ petition was unsatisfactory. The Petitioner, represented by the same counsel in both instances and fully aware of the facts, had an imperative duty to make a full and correct disclosure of all material facts, especially concerning the filing of an earlier petition by the same Petitioner seeking the same relief. The failure to do so, despite a specific statement in paragraph 31 of the present petition claiming no other proceedings were filed, amounted to a serious lapse. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present writ petition with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) by 30th April 2019. The Court also directed the Registry to place the petition before the Court for further directions if the costs were not deposited within the stipulated time. No specific issue regarding the levy of GST on REC scrips or the interpretation of Section 2(102) was decided on merits.

Facts

The Independent Power Producers Association of India (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging Circular No. 34/8/2018-GST, dated 01.03.2018, as modified by Circular No. 46/20/2018-GST, dated 06.06.2018, to the extent they levy GST on the sale of Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) scrips. The Petitioner also sought directions for the formation of a High-Level Committee to examine the levy of GST on trading margins of REC scrips and intermediaries, and for the explanation to Section 2(102) of the CGST Act to be given prospective effect from 01.02.2019. Crucially, the petition failed to disclose that the Petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition (W.P.(C) 3246/2019) seeking the same relief, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2019 due to questions regarding the Petitioner's locus standi. The withdrawal was with liberty to file separate petitions on behalf of individual members, and one such member had filed a separate petition listed on the same day.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner made a full and correct disclosure of material facts concerning the filing and withdrawal of a previous writ petition seeking the same relief, as required by law? (Question of fact and procedure) The Petitioner argued that the omission to mention the previous petition was inadvertent and due to a lack of a copy of the order permitting withdrawal. The Petitioner's counsel attempted to explain the lapse. The Respondents, implicitly through the Court's action, contended that the Petitioner failed to meet the disclosure requirements of a writ petition. The Court's decision hinges on the Petitioner's conduct in not disclosing the prior proceedings, which is a fundamental aspect of seeking equitable relief from the High Court.