M/S Safari Machineries And Tools, Through Its Proprietor Wais Mohammad vs. The State Of Jharkhand, Through The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, State Tax Dept.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Safari Machineries and Tools, a proprietorship concern, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking directions against the Respondent Authorities for an alleged delay of four and a half months in granting GST registration. The petitioner claimed this delay was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They also sought directions for exemplary costs and compensation of Rs 55,000 for financial losses, operational hardship, and mental agony caused by the delay. The respondents, including the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, State Tax Department, and the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ranchi West Circle, were arrayed as parties. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 9198 of 2025) related to a notice received from the respondents.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in GST registration and the resulting financial losses and operational hardship should be addressed through a civil suit for damages, rather than invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court found the petitioner's claim for compensation and exemplary costs to be outside the scope of a writ petition. Regarding the interlocutory application, the Court found it to be misconceived, as it pertained to a notice requiring the petitioner to furnish documents and file a reply, which was unrelated to the substantive reliefs sought in the main writ petition. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, while reserving liberty for the petitioner to pursue remedies available under the law. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of four and a half months by the Respondent Authorities in granting GST registration to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, warranting a writ of mandamus? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemplary costs and compensation amounting to Rs 55,000 for the alleged financial losses, operational hardship, and mental agony caused by the delay in GST registration? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the inordinate delay in obtaining GST registration was a violation of their fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They sought directions for the grant of registration, compensation for losses incurred, and exemplary costs due to the arbitrary and illegal actions of the authorities. The petitioner also argued that their interlocutory application was relevant to the main petition. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable. They contended that if the petitioner was aggrieved, they should approach the civil court for claiming damages, and such relief could not be granted by the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. They also stated that the interlocutory application was misconceived as it related to a notice for furnishing documents and filing a reply, which had no bearing on the main petition's reliefs.