Telangana State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sri B.Vinay Kumar

Facts

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director and Regional Manager, Nizamabad, is the appellant. The respondents are individuals holding licenses for stalls within the Kamareddy Bus Station. The appellants are aggrieved by interim orders passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by the respondents. These orders restrained the appellants from collecting Goods and Services Tax (GST) along with the monthly license fee from the respondents. The appellants filed intra-court appeals against these interim orders, and the operation of the interim orders was stayed pending the appeals. The present Writ Appeal No. 687 of 2019 is one such appeal.

Held

The Division Bench, in a batch of writ appeals including W.A. No. 710 of 2019, had passed a common order on March 9, 2021. In that order, the Court noted that the pleadings in most of the writ petitions were complete and they were ripe for final arguments. The parties agreed that instead of pressing the appeals or vacating the stay applications, it would be appropriate to have the writ petitions taken up for final hearing and disposal. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of, confirming the interim orders passed in the appeals. The parties were directed to appear before the learned Single Judge for fixing an actual date for arguments. Following this precedent, the present Writ Appeal No. 687 of 2019 is also disposed of. The impugned order in this case is to remain in abeyance, and the judgment of the Division Bench dated March 9, 2021, is to be applied mutatis mutandis. The office is directed to list W.P. No. 14585 of 2019 and other connected matters before the appropriate Bench on December 27, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in granting interim relief to the respondents by restraining the appellants from collecting GST along with the license fee, pending the final disposal of the writ petitions? The appellants argued that the learned Single Judge erred in granting interim relief, which led to the filing of the present intra-court appeals. They contended that the interim orders passed by the Single Judge were against the established principles of law and caused prejudice to the appellants. The appellants sought to have these interim orders set aside. The respondents, as petitioners in the writ petitions, sought to direct the appellants to collect monthly license fee without insisting on the payment of GST. They were granted interim relief by the learned Single Judge, restraining the appellants from collecting GST along with the license fee.