Ramu.P.S vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Ramu.P.S., was the successful bidder for a tender issued by the Rameshwaram Municipality (3rd respondent) for maintaining a municipal toilet. The tender was initially allotted on March 30, 2017, for one year and subsequently extended up to 2020. The petitioner paid a caution deposit of Rs. 50,000 and bid amounts including GST for the period April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018. For the subsequent periods (April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, and April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020), lease amounts were collected, with GST being collected for the period April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The petitioner claims that as per a circular dated August 3, 2017, the service was exempted from GST collection, and thus, the collected GST amounts totaling Rs. 3,10,520 for the periods April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, and April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, should be refunded. Despite making several representations, the petitioner's request for refund was not considered, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

Held

The Court held that when a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon them to consider it on its own merits and pass an appropriate order, rather than keeping it pending indefinitely. The non-consideration of the representation amounts to dereliction of duty. Therefore, the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the first respondent (The Commissioner, Municipal Administration) to consider the petitioner's representation dated January 24, 2022, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This consideration must be done after giving notice to the petitioner and any other interested parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the matter, leaving it open for the respondents to consider the case independently. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST amounting to Rs. 3,10,520 paid to the 3rd respondent for the periods April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, and April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, based on Circular No. 13082/2016/d2 dated August 3, 2017, which allegedly exempted the service from GST collection? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the service provided was exempted from GST collection as per the aforementioned circular. Therefore, the GST amounts collected by the 3rd respondent for the specified periods were erroneously collected and should be refunded. The petitioner relied on their representations dated July 18, 2020, October 22, 2020, and January 24, 2022, which were not considered. Revenue/State's contentions: The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's representation would be considered.