M/S Shiv Corporation vs. State Of Gujarat
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Shiv Corporation, is the owner of a property in Umbergaon, District Valsad, Gujarat, leased to M/s. PMS Exports (respondent No. 4). Respondent No. 4 abandoned the property in November 2015/early 2016, leaving outstanding dues of Rs. 24,99,472/-. The petitioner made several attempts to recover dues and remove the plant and machinery left by respondent No. 4. The respondent authorities (Nos. 2 and 3) affixed a notice declaring attachment of respondent No. 4's plant and machinery on the petitioner's property. The petitioner made a representation on 09.11.2020 to the Joint Commissioner, GST, requesting the removal of the machinery, but received no response. The present petition challenges this inaction.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has a right to receive a response from the concerned authority regarding its representation. The Court noted that the representation dated 09.11.2020 had not been responded to. Without delving into the inter-se disputes between the parties or the specifics of any proceedings concerning the attached plant and machinery, the Court allowed the petition to the limited extent of directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 09.11.2020 within four weeks. The Court clarified that if any other legal proceedings pending might affect the decision, the authority should share details with the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, as the owner, is entitled to know why its property is not being returned, especially since the lease period has ended. The decision on the representation should not overlook any pending proceedings or orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities (Nos. 2 and 3) are obligated to decide the representation dated 09.11.2020 made by the petitioner, M/s. Shiv Corporation, concerning the removal of attached plant and machinery from the petitioner's property, within a reasonable time, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, as the owner of the property, is unable to utilize it due to the attachment of respondent No. 4's machinery. The petitioner seeks a direction for the authorities to decide its representation dated 09.11.2020, as there has been no response. The petitioner is pursuing separate legal remedies against respondent No. 4 for outstanding dues. Revenue/State's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue or state in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner seeks to challenge the inaction on the part of the respondent authority in not paying any heed to the representation made by the petitioner on 9.11.2020 before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the following factual background.
The petitioner is the owner of the property being Plot No.1907/1908 at GIDC Industrial Estate, Phase-III, admeasuring 14000 square
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.