M/S Sreeram Santosh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors
Held
The Court held that the inaction of the Joint Commissioner of CGST & CX in disposing of the petitioner's representation for over two years was unacceptable. The Court emphasized that statutory authorities have a duty to act promptly and cannot sit over representations indefinitely, thereby burdening the High Court with litigation. The Court expressed its disapproval of such an attitude. The Court directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 26th December 2019 within four weeks from the communication of the order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the representation and that the respondents should act strictly in accordance with law while disposing of it. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sreeram Santosh Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the inaction of the Joint Commissioner of CGST & CX (respondent No. 3). The petitioner had submitted a representation on 26th December 2019, raising grievances, but the respondent authority had failed to dispose of it for over two years. The petitioner contended that this delay by the statutory authority was unacceptable and led to unnecessary litigation. The Court noted the significant delay and the burden placed on the High Court due to the respondent's inaction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the inaction of the Joint Commissioner of CGST & CX in disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 26th December 2019, for over two years, constitutes a failure to perform a statutory duty, thereby warranting intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that the respondent, as a statutory authority, has a duty to consider and dispose of representations within a reasonable time. The prolonged delay in disposing of their representation, despite it being submitted over two years prior, was a clear dereliction of duty and caused prejudice. The petitioner sought a direction for the timely disposal of their representation. The revenue (CGST Authority) did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for disposal of the representation. The judgment focuses on the inaction of the authority rather than the merits of the representation itself.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2021 ks WPA 4042 of 2020 sl. 137 M/s. Sreeram Santosh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Rituraj Chakraborty … For the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajashree Venknt Kundalia, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the CGST Authority.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Joint Commissioner of CGST & CX, being the respondent No.3 and sitting over its representation against the grievance raised in the said representation and not disposing of the said representation till date though more than two years have been passed. I failed to understand that more than two years have taken and the Officer concerned is having no time to dispose of the aforesaid representation. I am not talking about the merits of the said representation, respondents are free to consider or reject the said representation on merits but being a statutory authority how can it sit over the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and not disposi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.