K.Veeraputhiran vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, K. Veeraputhiran, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents, including the Commissioner and Joint Commissioners of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department and the Executive Hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Thirukovil, to refund Rs. 5,10,500/- (50% of the total rent of Rs. 10,21,000/-) and Rs. 1,83,780/- paid towards GST. The petitioner had obtained a license to put up temporary stalls for Masi festivals from February 20, 2020, to April 20, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner claimed to be unable to utilize the stalls and sought a refund. The 4th respondent (Executive Hereditary Trustee) indicated that a resolution to refund the amount was passed and referred to the 1st respondent (Commissioner) for approval.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim for refund. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition based on the submissions made by the respondents. The Court directed the 1st respondent, the Commissioner, to act on the petitioner's representation within 60 days of receiving a copy of the order. The 4th respondent was also directed to refund the amount, subject to the orders to be passed by the 1st respondent. The Court recorded the submissions that a resolution had been passed by the temple to refund the amount and that the matter was referred to the Commissioner for approval. The Court's decision was to ensure timely action by the Commissioner on the representation, rather than adjudicating the entitlement to the refund itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of 50% of the rent and the full GST amount paid for temporary stalls due to the COVID-19 pandemic preventing the utilization of the stalls, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic rendered the license for the stalls unusable, thus entitling them to a refund of the amounts paid. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited by the petitioner as there was no appearance. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that a resolution to refund the amount had been passed by the temple and was awaiting approval from the 1st respondent. The learned Government Advocate for the official respondents stated that appropriate orders would be passed based on the recommendation of the 4th respondent within two months.