Manikandan.S vs. The Secretary Finance, GST

Facts

The petitioner, S. Manikandan, sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 23.10.2020. The representation concerned the repayment of Rs. 40,176/- under the "Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019". The petitioner had attempted to pay this amount online on 03.03.2020, but the payment was returned to his account. He requested reconsideration and acceptance of the payment to avail the scheme's benefits. The respondents considered this representation and rejected it through an order dated 10.03.2021. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus to consider his earlier representation, without challenging the rejection order.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the rejection of his representation dated 23.10.2020, which was communicated through an order dated 10.03.2021. The Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged this specific rejection order. Instead, he had filed a fresh writ petition seeking a mandamus to consider the same representation that had already been rejected. The Court reasoned that issuing a mandamus to reconsider a matter that has already been decided and the decision not challenged would be inappropriate. Therefore, the writ petition was found to be without merit and liable for dismissal. The dismissal of the writ petition was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the order dated 10.03.2021 in accordance with law, if he was advised to do so.

Key Issues

1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued to direct the respondents to consider a representation that has already been considered and rejected by an order dated 10.03.2021, when that rejection order has not been challenged by the petitioner, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his representation dated 23.10.2020 should be considered, and he should be allowed to repay the amount of Rs. 40,176/- under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019. He sought a mandamus to facilitate this. The petitioner's argument implicitly suggests that the rejection order should not stand in the way of his request being considered anew or that the rejection itself was flawed. Revenue's contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner's representation dated 23.10.2020 had already been considered and rejected by an order dated 10.03.2021. They argued that since this rejection order was not challenged, the writ petition seeking a mandamus to reconsider the same representation was not maintainable.