Mithilesh Jaiswal vs. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court directed that a decision on the petitioner's claim/application for the release of Rs. 2,98,00,000/- GST be taken by opposite party no. 2 within a period of one month. If opposite party no. 2 was not the competent authority, the matter was to be forwarded to the appropriate authority, who would then decide the claim within the same one-month period. The reasoning was based on the opposite party's statement indicating readiness to decide and the petitioner's recent submission of the succession certificate. The Court also advised the petitioner to approach the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, if she remained aggrieved after the decision. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, and the decision was procedural, focusing on ensuring a timely resolution of the petitioner's claim.

Facts

The petitioner, Mithilesh Jaiswal, is the wife of the late Ganga Prasad Jaiswal, who allegedly had commercial transactions with the opposite parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-release/payment of an amount of Rs. 2,98,00,000/- related to GST. The opposite parties, represented by Shri Naresh Chandra Mehrotra, stated that opposite party no. 2 was ready to decide on the petitioner's application as she had recently submitted a succession certificate. The Court directed that a decision be taken on the petitioner's claim/application within one month by opposite party no. 2. If another authority was competent, the matter was to be forwarded to them for a decision within the same period. The petitioner was advised to approach the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, if further aggrieved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the opposite party no. 2 is competent to decide the petitioner's claim for the release of Rs. 2,98,00,000/- GST, and if not, to which authority the matter should be transferred for a timely decision? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, as the legal heir, is seeking the release of a substantial GST amount arising from commercial transactions of her late husband. The delay in payment and the need for a decision are the core of her grievance. Revenue/State's Contention: The opposite parties, through their counsel, indicated readiness to decide the petitioner's application, citing the recent submission of the succession certificate as the reason for prior inaction. They suggested that a decision could be taken by opposite party no. 2 or forwarded to a competent authority if necessary.