Dr S.Surya Prakash vs. The Secretary TO Government

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. S. Surya Prakash, was arrested in connection with a crime related to the procurement and supply of goods to Assam, alleging a significant discrepancy between materials purchased and transported. Following his arrest and subsequent suspension, the petitioner brought this matter to the attention of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Karur-2 Assessment Circle, and subsequently approached the High Court. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent tax authorities to take action based on an office report submitted by the fifth respondent (Assistant Commissioner) dated 25.06.2026. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from transactions involving M/s. Pupa Home Care Pvt. Limited, M/s. Abhinav Fabrics Private Limited, and M/s. Abhinav Fabrics.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's role in the matter concluded with bringing the alleged discrepancies in the procurement and supply of goods to the notice of the GST authorities. The Court observed that GST authorities possess various powers, including scrutinizing returns, inspection, and determining tax liability under Sections 73, 74, and 74A of the relevant Act. These decisions, however, must be taken by the GST authorities through an independent application of their mind to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court found that the petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus as requested, as his involvement did not extend to compelling the authorities to take specific actions beyond reporting the issue. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, without any order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the GST authorities to take action as per the office report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) dated 25.06.2026, concerning alleged discrepancies in goods procurement and supply to Assam. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the tax authorities should be directed to act on the office report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), implying a need for investigation and action based on the information provided. The petitioner's role, as presented, was to bring the matter to the notice of the authorities. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's observation suggests that the petitioner's role concluded with bringing the matter to the notice of the GST authorities, and beyond that, the petitioner was not entitled to a mandamus.