Rajgarh Kriya Vikriya Sahakar Samiti Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Rajgarh Kriya Vikriya Sahakar Samiti Limited, received a show cause notice (DRC-07) under the GST regime. The petitioner responded to this notice and deposited the demanded amount. Despite the deposit, the petitioner averred that the demand had not been deleted from the GST Portal. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, seeking a direction to the respondents to delete the demand from the GST Portal. The respondents are the Union of India, the State of Rajasthan, and the Joint/Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department, Circle-A, Alwar.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was wholly frivolous. The Court found that at the stage the petition was filed, no cause of action had arisen for the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court observed that no coercive action had been taken by the respondents against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court concluded that the writ petition was misconceived. The reasoning was based on the principle that a writ petition is generally entertained when there is a violation of statutory rights or when there is an impending threat of coercive action. In this case, the petitioner had complied with the demand, and no adverse action was being taken, rendering the petition premature and unnecessary. The Court dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether a cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to file a writ petition when the demand has been deposited and no coercive action has been taken by the revenue authorities? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite depositing the demanded amount in response to the show cause notice, the corresponding demand remained un-deleted on the GST Portal, necessitating judicial intervention to rectify this administrative oversight. They sought a direction for the deletion of the demand from the portal. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, argued that the writ petition was wholly frivolous. They contended that at the present stage, no cause of action had arisen for the petitioner, and no coercive action had been taken against them by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the petition was misconceived.