Schindler INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Kerala

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the inaction of the respondent authorities regarding their application for refund. The petitioner's refund application, marked as Ext.P2, was pending before the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract), SGST Department, Ernakulam. The writ petition sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of this pending refund application. The petitioner was represented by its Deputy General Manager - Field Operations, and the respondents included the State of Kerala and various SGST department officials.

Held

The Court held that it has the power to direct the respondent authorities to take a decision on the pending refund application. The reasoning was based on the general supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that statutory authorities perform their duties. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in processing their refund application. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel a statutory authority to perform its statutory duty, including deciding on pending applications within a reasonable period. The operative direction was to the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract), SGST Department, Ernakulam, to take a decision on Ext.P2 (the refund application) within a period of one month after providing notice to the authorized representatives of the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court has the power to direct the respondent authorities to decide on a pending refund application within a stipulated time frame, under Section 2(16) and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the corresponding Kerala State GST Act, 2017, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the prolonged pendency of their refund application without any decision amounted to a failure on the part of the revenue authorities to perform their statutory duty. They contended that the Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can direct the authorities to act within a reasonable time, especially when no specific timeline is provided for the disposal of such applications or when the existing timelines are not adhered to. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, did not appear to have presented any specific arguments against the petitioner's prayer for a direction to decide the refund application. The judgment does not record any counter-arguments from the revenue side.