Ms R K Transport And Constructions Limited Through Its Project Manager Sri S Raja Pillai vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Secretary Commercial Tax Deptt

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R.K. Transport & Constructions Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus against the respondent authorities, specifically respondent no. 5, the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Hazaribagh Range. The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 6, M.B. Enterprises, collected GST from the petitioner for the financial year 2020-21 but failed to deposit it with the government. This non-deposit resulted in the denial of input tax credit (ITC) to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 11,18,832/-. The petitioner had made representations to the State authorities without success. The State counsel submitted that the petition might not be entertained, suggesting the petitioner approach the concerned respondent authorities again.

Held

The Court held that it was not required to make any comments on the merits of the case or issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for. The Court noted that respondent no. 6, the supplier against whom allegations were made, was not before the Court. The Court acknowledged that the respondent authorities were competent to examine the nature of the relief prayed for and the allegations made. Therefore, instead of issuing a writ, the Court permitted the petitioner to approach the competent authority with a fresh representation. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the fresh representation should be considered in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings against respondent no. 6 for alleged non-deposit of collected GST, thereby causing denial of ITC to the petitioner, as per the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that respondent no. 6 collected tax amounting to Rs. 11,18,832/- for the financial year 2020-21 and failed to deposit it, leading to the denial of their ITC. They sought a mandamus to compel the authorities to take action against the supplier and resolve the ITC issue, as their representations had been unsuccessful. Revenue's Contention: The respondent Department argued that a writ petition might not be the appropriate remedy and suggested that the petitioner should be directed to approach the concerned respondent authorities once again. They did not contest the factual allegations but questioned the maintainability of the writ petition.