Shyam Kishore Prasad vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Shyam Kishore Prasad, challenged a letter dated December 8, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 3, the Divisional Rail Manager (Commerce), East Central Railways, Samastipur. This letter demanded payment of Rs. 2,05,389/- towards license fees for a catering stall, along with Rs. 39,240/- GST and Rs. 3,805/- Service Tax, totaling Rs. 2,48,434/-. The petitioner was given seven days to pay, failing which his license would be cancelled. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash this demand and subsequent action.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The petitioner, under instructions from his counsel, stated that he would be satisfied if a direction was issued to the concerned authority to consider and decide his representation. The respondents agreed to this proposal. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before Respondent No. 5, the Chief Commercial Inspector, Eastern Central Railways, Samastipur. The authority was directed to consider and dispose of this representation expeditiously, preferably within three months, by a reasoned and speaking order, following the principles of natural justice and affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, leaving all issues open. Liberty was also reserved for the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies and to approach the Court again if necessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice dated 08.12.2021, issued by Respondent No. 3, for payment of license fees, GST, and Service Tax, amounting to Rs. 2,48,434/-, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned letter and the demand raised therein. The specific grounds for challenge were not detailed in the judgment, but the prayer indicates a dispute over the demand. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, did not present detailed arguments on the merits of the demand. Instead, they agreed to consider a representation from the petitioner.