Ravichandran.N vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Excise

Held

The Court noted that subsequent events had transpired, specifically that the second respondent had stated that payment for the year 2022-2023 was under progress and would be made by the due date, with an endorsement made to that effect. In light of these developments, the Court found that there was nothing further requiring its consideration in the matter. However, it clarified that this disposal would not prevent the petitioner from pursuing any further grievances before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these clarifications, without costs. No specific finding was made on the legality of the 2% GST deduction itself, as the matter was resolved based on the subsequent events and the municipality's undertaking.

Facts

The petitioner, N. Ravichandran, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent, the Commissioner of Puliangudi Municipality, to consider his representation dated April 5, 2022, and refund the 2% Goods and Services Tax (GST) deducted from his bills for works completed during the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The first respondent is the Superintendent of CGST and Excise. The petitioner stated that GSTR-7 payments were made up to 2021-22, with payments for 2022-23 onwards still outstanding. The second respondent, through its counsel, stated that payment for the year 2022-2023 was under progress and would be made by the due date, making an endorsement to this effect.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated April 5, 2022, and refund the 2% GST deducted from his bills for the years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of the deducted GST amount and for the consideration of his representation. Revenue/State's Contention: The second respondent (Municipality) stated that the payment for the year 2022-2023 was under progress and would be made by the due date, and made an endorsement to this effect. The first respondent (CGST) did not appear to have made specific arguments on the merits of the refund claim itself, but its presence as a respondent indicates the context of GST deduction.