Chinnappa Nargiyar K vs. The Senior Director

Facts

The petitioner, K. Chinnppan Nargiyar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus against various authorities, including the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the Commercial Tax Department (GST), to initiate action against the seventh respondent, Veeralakshmi Jewellery, for allegedly selling jewelry without a Hall Mark Unique Identification (HU ID Mark). The petitioner also alleged that the seventh respondent committed fraud by receiving GST informally without issuing receipts and misappropriating the same without paying it to the government. The petitioner had not personally transacted with the seventh respondent; a relative had made the purchase. The petitioner had previously submitted representations to the concerned authorities, but no action was taken, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Firstly, it observed that the petitioner had no direct dealing with the seventh respondent, and the dispute arose from a solitary transaction involving a relative. The Court stated that such a dispute between a shop owner and a customer based on a single transaction cannot be the subject matter of writ proceedings. The Court suggested that the petitioner could approach the jurisdictional consumer forum for redressal. Secondly, regarding the allegation of non-issuance of proper bills and potential GST fraud, the Court noted that the petitioner had brought this to the notice of the concerned authority. The Court stated that it is for the authority to take action as per law. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, without costs. No specific finding was made on the merits of the allegations of fraud or non-compliance with hallmarking regulations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has no direct dealing with the seventh respondent and the dispute arises from a solitary transaction involving a relative? (Question of law and fact). 2. Whether the Commercial Tax Department should initiate action against the seventh respondent for alleged fraud in receiving GST informally without issuing receipts and misappropriating the same, given the petitioner's complaint? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seventh respondent was indulging in selling jewelry without the mandatory HU ID Mark and was committing fraud by not issuing proper receipts for GST collected and not remitting it to the government. The petitioner sought directions for appropriate action against the seventh respondent by the Bureau of Indian Standards and the Commercial Tax Department based on their representations. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader and Central Government Standing Counsel, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the allegations. However, the Court's observations suggest that the nature of the dispute and the lack of direct dealing by the petitioner were considered.