Abdul Hasmat vs. The State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage. It directed Respondent No. 2, the Special Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (T), to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated March 12, 2021, within 15 days of receiving the order. The Court emphasized that the disposal should be a speaking order, taking into consideration the statements made by the petitioner in his representation. The petitioner was also permitted to submit a fresh representation along with the court's order. Crucially, the Court ordered that the status quo as on the date of the order should be maintained regarding the operation of the Doigrung Sand Mahal until the disposal of the representation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST demand itself but focused on the procedural aspect of disposing of the petitioner's representation.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdul Hasmat, was granted a Letter of Intent in 2014 for a mining contract for stone/sand/gravel from the Doigrung Sand Mahal for 7 years. An Environment Clearance was issued in 2015 for 5 years, expiring on February 16, 2020. The petitioner sought an extension, and the Divisional Forest Officer, Golaghat Division (Respondent No. 4), directed the Range Forest Officer (Respondent No. 5) to stop operations due to delays in the clearance. Operations ceased on December 15, 2020. Subsequently, the Environment Clearance was extended for 2 years from February 25, 2021. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 4 issued a demand notice on January 4, 2021, for GST, MMDRR, and other dues for various defaulted quarters. The petitioner, in a representation dated March 12, 2021, stated that most dues were paid, except for specific GST and IT amounts for certain quarters, which he was ready to pay. He also requested a joint discussion for any remaining unpaid amounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice for GST and other dues issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (Respondent No. 4) is legally sustainable when the petitioner has claimed substantial payment and offered to pay the remaining dues, and whether the petitioner's representation dated March 12, 2021, requires disposal by the competent authority. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he had paid most of the dues as per the demand notice, except for specific GST and IT amounts for certain quarters, which he was ready to pay promptly. He also asserted that other government dues for earlier quarters had been paid and requested a joint discussion to clarify any outstanding amounts. He argued that his representation had not been disposed of, while his operations remained halted. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned counsel for the respondent Forest Department fairly submitted that the petitioner's representation dated March 12, 2021, may be directed to be disposed of by the Special Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (T) (Respondent No. 2).