N.Suresh vs. The Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, N. Suresh, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents, officials from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, to consider his representation dated April 5, 2023. This representation requested a refund of rent paid for two stalls, including the Goods and Services Tax (GST) component. The petitioner based his request on an intimation letter dated August 14, 2022, issued by the fourth respondent, the Executive Hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Thirukovil. The petitioner contended that his representation had not been considered by the statutory authorities, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
Held
The Court held that statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits and pass appropriate orders. The non-consideration of the petitioner's representation dated April 5, 2023, by the official respondents was deemed a dereliction of duty. Consequently, the Court invoked its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the official respondents to consider the representation. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim and that the respondents were free to consider it on its own merits. The official respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, taking into account the communication dated August 14, 2022, from the fourth respondent. No specific issue regarding GST law itself was decided on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the official respondents have a duty to consider the petitioner's representation dated April 5, 2023, seeking a refund of rent and GST, based on the communication dated August 14, 2022, passed by the fourth respondent? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a statutory authority has a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits and pass appropriate orders, rather than leaving them pending indefinitely. Failure to do so constitutes a dereliction of duty, justifying the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's direction implies that the respondents were expected to consider the representation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.05.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH N.Suresh ...Petitioner Vs
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungampakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Elis Nagar (Near Bus Stop), Madurai - 625 016. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Pandian Nagar, 1st Street, Dindigul - 624 001. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.P.M.S.V.P. Subashini, Executive Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Thirukovil, Hereditary Trustee, Dindigul - 624001. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 05.04.2023 based on communication dated 14.08.2020. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader for R1
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.