Vvk Textiles vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (Circle 4)

Held

The Court considered the limited prayer made by the petitioner. Instead of directly issuing the Mandamus as sought, the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2024. The respondent is mandated to pass orders on the representation on merits and in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. Crucially, the respondent must afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the notice under DRC-13 should ultimately be issued, but rather focused on ensuring the respondent addresses the petitioner's request properly. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must consider representations made to them and pass reasoned orders after providing a hearing, within a reasonable timeframe.

Facts

The petitioner, VVK Textiles, represented by its proprietor Vadivel Vijay, filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus. The petitioner requested the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer (Circle-4), Karur, to issue a notice under Form DRC-13, as per Section 79(1)(C) of the GST Act, 2017. This notice was to be directed against the debtors of the petitioner. The request was based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2024. The respondent is the tax authority. The dispute concerns the issuance of a recovery notice against third parties who owe money to the petitioner. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this writ petition and the petitioner's prior representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue a notice under DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(C) of the GST Act, 2017, against the debtors of the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2024. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the respondent should be directed to act upon their representation and issue the necessary recovery notice to their debtors as provided under the GST Act. They sought the Court's intervention to compel the respondent to perform this statutory duty. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's prayer. The judgment indicates that the respondent was heard, but their specific contentions or reliance on any provisions, circulars, or precedents are not detailed in the provided text.