The State Bank Of INDIA vs. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, State Bank of India, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Ramayampet (Respondent No. 2), to register a sale certificate dated March 31, 2021, in favour of Sri Kasireddy Yogeshwar Reddy (Respondent No. 4). The petitioner also sought a direction for Respondent No. 2 to respond to their representations dated June 29, 2021, and July 7, 2021, pending the disposal of the writ petition. The State of Telangana (Respondent No. 1) and the Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 3) were also impleaded as respondents. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Held

The Court noted that after the filing of the writ petition, the Sub-Registrar, Respondent No. 2, had proceeded to register the sale certificate. Consequently, the Court found that there was no live issue remaining for adjudication in the case. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous. The Court made no order as to costs. No specific GST provisions were discussed or applied in the decision, as the matter was resolved by the subsequent action of the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Sub-Registrar, Ramayampet, ought to be directed to register the sale certificate dated March 31, 2021, in favour of Respondent No. 4, as prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the registration of the sale certificate was a necessary step following a sale conducted by the bank. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. The core issue revolves around the procedural obligation of the Sub-Registrar to register the document presented by the petitioner bank. The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific GST provisions or amounts in dispute, focusing primarily on the procedural aspect of registration.