Jl Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Taxes, Ballygunge Charge

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Firstly, the petitioner failed to comply with Rule 20 of the High Court at Calcutta Rules, which mandates a specific statement on oath regarding a demand for justice and its particulars, including documentary evidence. The petitioner's counsel was unable to produce any such documentation. Secondly, the Court found that the petitioner had made an incorrect and false statement on oath in the writ petition regarding having made a demand for justice. Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Amrit Lal Vs. Collector, C.E.C. Revenue and State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma & Ors., the Court emphasized that a demand for justice and its refusal are prerequisites for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on these grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, J. L. Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 8, 2023, passed by the WBGST authority under Rule 86A of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without fulfilling the criteria stipulated in Rule 86A. The petitioner also asserted that they had demanded justice, which was denied, and that no alternative remedy was available. However, when questioned by the Court, the petitioner's counsel could not produce any documentation to substantiate the claim of having made a demand for justice. The petitioner had sought reliefs including a writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for a writ in the nature of mandamus, given the petitioner's alleged failure to comply with Rule 20 of the High Court at Calcutta Rules relating to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which requires a specific statement on demand for justice and its particulars. 2. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for making a false statement on oath regarding the demand for justice. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order under Rule 86A was passed without fulfilling the necessary criteria. They also claimed to have demanded justice and had no alternative remedy, implying the writ petition was the appropriate recourse. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the writ petition should be dismissed for making incorrect statements and for non-compliance with Rule 20 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, which mandates a demand for justice prior to seeking a writ of mandamus. The State relied on Supreme Court decisions in Amrit Lal Vs. Collector, C.E.C. Revenue and State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma & Ors. to support its contention that a demand for justice and its refusal are fundamental requirements for issuing a writ of mandamus.