Shambhu Shankar Thakur vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issue of whether GST should be levied on petroleum products or the process for recommending such a levy. Instead, the Court disposed of the petition based on a concession made by the petitioner. The petitioner agreed to be content with a direction for the concerned respondents to consider and decide a representation that the petitioner would submit afresh within four weeks. The counsel for the State assured that upon receipt of such a representation, it would be dealt with in accordance with law, expeditiously, and positively within three months from the date of receipt. The Court also reserved liberty for the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies available in law. The Court expressed hope that any such future recourse would be dealt with in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch.

Facts

The petitioner, Shambhu Shankar Thakur, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court on October 26, 2018. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (Union of India, Goods and Service Tax Council, and the State of Bihar) to recommend a date for levying Goods and Services Tax (GST) on petroleum products, including petroleum crude, high-speed diesel, motor spirit (petrol), natural gas, and aviation turbine fuel. The matter was listed for its first hearing on January 6, 2020. After hearing arguments, the petitioner stated they would be satisfied if a direction was issued for the respondents to consider and decide a fresh representation to be made by the petitioner within four weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to recommend a date for levying GST on petroleum products, as per the petitioner's prayer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the GST Council has the authority to recommend the levy of GST on petroleum products, and the Union and States are bound by such recommendations. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to compel the respondents to act on this matter, implying a failure to discharge their statutory or constitutional duty. The respondents, through their counsel, did not present a detailed argument on the merits of levying GST on petroleum products. Instead, the counsel for the State indicated that any representation received would be dealt with in accordance with law expeditiously. The Union of India was represented but their specific arguments are not recorded in detail regarding the core issue.