Paranthaman .K vs. Union Of INDIA
Facts
The petitioner, K. Paranthaman, filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant GST, Road Tax, Tool Tax, and Registration concessions for purchasing a four-wheeler, referencing a previous order of the Court. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, an order was passed rejecting the petitioner's request for a refund of GST paid. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the Writ Petition had become infructuous due to this subsequent order. The petitioner sought liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging the order that rejected their refund request.
Held
The Court held that the Writ Petition had become infructuous. This was based on the submission by the petitioner's counsel that a subsequent order had been passed rejecting the petitioner's request for a refund of GST paid. As the original prayer was for concessions and the subsequent event related to a refund rejection, the Court found that the current petition could no longer grant the relief originally sought. The Court's reasoning was that the subsequent development had superseded the need for the current writ. The operative direction was to dismiss the Writ Petition as infructuous, but with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition specifically challenging the order that rejected their refund request. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present Writ Petition has become infructuous due to a subsequent order rejecting the petitioner's request for a GST refund, thereby rendering the relief sought in the original petition unattainable? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel argued that the Writ Petition had become infructuous because, during its pendency, an order was passed rejecting the petitioner's request for a refund of GST. Consequently, the petitioner sought liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging this new order. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the infructuous nature of the petition or the subsequent order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.07.2024 CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN K.Paranthaman ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Block No.14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003. 2.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Antyodaya Bhawan, New Delhi – 110003. _____________ Page No. 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Union of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary, AEI Section, Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, No.428, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5.The Commissioner of CGST, Bibikulam, Madurai. ... Respondents [R5 was suo motu impleaded vide order dated 25.09.2023] Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of In
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 Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.