M/S Sudalagunta Sugars LTD vs. Additional Commissioner

Held

The Court acknowledged the submissions of both parties regarding the subsequent events and the petitioner's representation for instalment payments. The Court noted that the Superintendent of Central Tax, Srikalahasti, who was the relevant authority to consider the instalment request, was not a party to the writ petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Superintendent of Central Tax, Srikalahasti, to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated August 12, 2019, strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Registry was directed to mark a copy of the order to the said official. The Court did not decide on the merits of the instalment request itself but directed its consideration by the appropriate authority.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to pay GST dues in instalments. During the pendency of the writ petition, a Best Judgment Assessment Order was passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax for the period June 2018 to March 2019, with taxes paid only up to May 2018. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Central Tax, Srikalahasti, on August 12, 2019, requesting permission to pay the tax dues in instalments. The petitioner's counsel then submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of without further adjudication, directing the authority to consider the instalment request. The revenue's counsel argued that no cause of action survived in the writ petition and any relief regarding instalments would require a separate proceeding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can mould the relief and grant an appropriate order in the writ petition, taking note of subsequent events, or if a fresh proceeding is necessary for the petitioner to seek instalment payment of tax dues, as argued by the petitioner and the revenue respectively. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Court, exercising its equity jurisdiction, can consider subsequent events and mould the relief, obviating the need for a fresh proceeding. The petitioner sought a direction to the Superintendent of Central Tax to consider and dispose of their representation dated August 12, 2019, for instalment payments. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that in light of the subsequent Best Judgment Assessment Order and the petitioner's representation for instalment payments, no cause of action survived in the present writ petition. They argued that if the petitioner sought relief regarding instalment payments, a separate proceeding was necessary, and no such relief could be granted in the existing writ petition.