Kanhaiya Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 6, the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Patna, to consider and decide the petitioner's case. This decision was to be made in terms of the judgment and order dated July 5, 2019, passed in CWJC No. 1452/2019 and analogous cases, as well as letter No. 5405 dated September 30, 2019. The Court clarified that all issues of fact and law were left open for consideration by the said authority. The Court expressed hope and expectation that the decision would be made expeditiously, preferably within four months from the receipt of the order. The operative direction was to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the specified authority. No specific finding was given on the legality or arbitrariness of the demand notices themselves, as the matter was remitted.

Facts

The petitioner, Kanhaiya Singh, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging letters/demand notices dated March 7, 2020, issued by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Danapur. These notices directed the petitioner to pay a total CGST/SGST tax amount of Rs. 2,47,324.00. The petitioner contended that these demands were illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violated the terms of the respective tenders/bids/agreements. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the demands violated a previous judgment dated July 5, 2019, passed in CWJC No. 1452/2019 and analogous cases, and a subsequent letter dated September 30, 2019. The petitioner also sought a direction to prevent the freezing of their bank account. The State's counsel had no objection to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notices dated March 7, 2020, for CGST/SGST amounting to Rs. 2,47,324.00, issued by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Danapur, are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and beyond the terms of the tenders/bids/agreements, thereby violating the petitioner's rights? (Question of law and fact, potentially relating to principles of natural justice and contractual obligations under GST law). 2. Whether the aforementioned demand notices violate the judgment and order dated July 5, 2019, passed in CWJC No. 1452/2019 and analogous cases, and letter No. 5405 dated September 30, 2019? (Question of law, concerning the applicability and adherence to previous judicial pronouncements and administrative instructions). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the demand notices were illegal and arbitrary, exceeding the contractual terms and violating a prior High Court judgment and a subsequent administrative letter. They relied on the judgment in CWJC No. 1452/2019 and the letter dated September 30, 2019. Revenue/State's Contentions: The counsel for the State submitted that they had no objection to the matter being remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration of the petitioner's case on its own merits in accordance with law.