M/S. V K Palappa Nadar Poultry Farms PVT LTD vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.V.K.Palappa Nadar Poultry Farms Pvt., Ltd., represented by its Director, K.Anandhakrishnan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought a direction to the first respondent, the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, to dispose of their representation dated 13.09.2023. The respondents included the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, and the Sub Registrar, Rajapalayam. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involved the filing of a representation by the petitioner and the subsequent writ petition seeking its disposal.

Held

The Court held that the first respondent, the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, should consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 13.09.2023, followed by the subsequent representation dated 20.12.2023. The Court directed that this consideration and disposal should be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that the writ petition was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities have a duty to consider and decide representations made to them within a reasonable time, and a writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce this duty. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court's direction was to dispose of the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 13.09.2023, as mandated by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that their representation, dated 13.09.2023 and followed by another on 20.12.2023, requires a decision from the respondent authorities. They sought a writ of mandamus to compel the first respondent to act on this representation. The petitioner relied on the general principle that representations made to statutory authorities should be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time frame. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for disposal of the representation.