S. Nagarajan vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Facts

The petitioner, S. Nagarajan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. His grievance was that his representation dated April 7, 2018, regarding the applicability of GST to works where agreements were entered into before July 1, 2017, had not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to the State of Tamil Nadu and its Commercial Tax Department officials to consider his representation within a stipulated time. The respondents, including the State of Tamil Nadu, its Commercial Tax Department, the Municipal Administration Department, and the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, were represented. The matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Held

The Court held that the respondents are duty-bound to consider the petitioner's representation. It was stated that the non-consideration of a representation would amount to a dereliction of ordinary duties. Therefore, the Court found justification in invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the petitioner's representation itself. The operative direction was to the first respondent (The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, The Commercial Tax Department) to consider the petitioner's representation dated April 7, 2018, on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. No other issues were decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are duty-bound to consider the petitioner's representation dated April 7, 2018, concerning the applicability of GST to works contracted before July 1, 2017? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that his representation, which raised a crucial issue regarding GST applicability on pre-existing contracts, had been ignored by the authorities. He contended that non-consideration of such a representation amounted to dereliction of duty by the respondents. The petitioner sought the Court's intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel the authorities to act. The respondents, through their counsel, were present and consented to the disposal of the writ petition, implying they did not contest the procedural necessity of considering the representation.