Rajagopal.D vs. The Commissioner, GST

Facts

The petitioner, D. Rajagopal, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the GST authorities (Commissioner, GST Central Jurisdiction; Commissioner, GST State Jurisdiction; Deputy Commissioner, GST Central Jurisdiction; and Superintendent of GST) to consider his representation dated 09.02.2023. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are the GST authorities. The matter was heard at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the representation.

Held

The Court held that the GST authorities should consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2023. The Court directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the representation. The ratio decidendi is that tax authorities are obligated to consider and decide upon representations made by assessees within a reasonable time frame, and a Writ of Mandamus can be issued to enforce this procedural duty. The operative direction was to consider the representation and pass an order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the GST authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2023? The petitioner argued that the GST authorities have a statutory duty to consider representations made by taxpayers. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the consideration of the representation but were present and consented to the disposal of the writ petition. The core issue revolves around the procedural obligation of the tax authorities to address taxpayer grievances submitted through formal representations.