P.Lalith Sandeep Nishank vs. State Bank Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, P. Lalith Sandeep Nishank, leased out an immovable property to the State Bank of India under a registered lease deed dated May 22, 2015, for a period of 15 years. During the subsistence of this lease, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime came into force. The petitioner claims that the respondent bank is liable to pay GST on the monthly lease amount, which the petitioner intends to remit to the authorities. However, the respondent bank has allegedly failed to pay the GST amount. Consequently, the petitioner submitted representations to the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, ADB Tandur Branch, on June 3, 2020, and February 10, 2020, seeking payment of the GST over the leased property. The bank has not responded to these representations, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that there was no necessity to put the respondents on notice, as the petitioner was merely seeking consideration of their representations. The Court directed the respondent bank (Respondent No. 3, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, ADB Tandur Branch) to consider the representations dated June 3, 2020, and February 10, 2020, submitted by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 is to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court also stated that the said decision would be communicated to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made. The Court noted that the petitioner's grievance was the non-consideration of these representations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent bank to consider the petitioner's representations dated June 3, 2020, and February 10, 2020, for the payment of GST on the lease amount for the property leased to the bank under a registered lease deed dated May 22, 2015. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the respondent bank is legally obligated to pay GST on the lease amount, as per the GST regime, to enable the petitioner to remit it to the authorities. The bank's failure to do so, despite the petitioner's representations, is illegal and arbitrary. Respondent's Contention (as stated by the Court based on counsel's submission): The respondent bank, through its counsel, submitted that there is no response from the petitioner's side even after three years, and therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to take further action. The counsel suggested that a direction to the respondent bank to consider the representations or for the petitioner to pursue legal remedies would suffice.