Sunil Dutt vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil Dutt, an Aggregator of land, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the respondents to pay facilitation/Aggregator charges of 1% along with 18% GST. These charges are allegedly due for land sold to the respondents through a registered sale deed. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 on August 25, 2022, but no action was taken, and no payment was made. The State of Haryana, through its counsel, informed the Court that respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, had taken cognizance of the petitioner's grievances and would conclude the matter expeditiously.

Held

The High Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for facilitation charges and GST. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to conclude the proceedings concerning the petitioner's grievance in accordance with the law within a period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of the Court's order. The Court's decision was based on the submission by the State that the Deputy Commissioner had already taken cognizance and would expedite the resolution. No specific finding was made on the entitlement to the charges or GST, nor was there any discussion of specific GST provisions or precedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is legally entitled to facilitation/Aggregator charges at the rate of 1% along with 18% GST for aggregating land sold through registered sale deeds, as per government rates? 2. Whether the respondents have failed to act upon the petitioner's representation dated August 25, 2022, and consequently failed to make the legally due payment? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that as an Aggregator, he is entitled to facilitation charges of 1% as per government rates and also 18% GST on these charges. He asserted that despite his representation to respondent No. 2, no action has been taken, and the payment remains outstanding. Respondents' Contention: The State of Haryana, through its counsel, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal (respondent No. 3) has taken cognizance of the petitioner's grievances and assured that the matter would be concluded expeditiously.