P.K.Shrivastava vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The Court accepted the petitioner's prayer, directing the petitioner to resubmit their representation to respondent 2, the Commissioner, Sales Tax (Now GST) Department, Jabalpur, within 15 days. Respondent 2 was directed to consider and decide the representation within 90 days of its receipt, taking into account the decision in Dr. K.K. Kaul (supra). The decision was to be a reasoned and speaking order. If the petitioner's case was found to be covered by the Dr. K.K. Kaul judgment, the requisite benefits were to be granted in accordance with law. Respondent 2 was also directed to intimate the decision to the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case.
Facts
The petitioner, P.K. Shrivastava, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking benefits for super-senior pensioners, specifically requesting that these benefits be granted one year prior to the previously recognized 80th or 85th birthday. The petitioner's case was based on a prior decision by a coordinate bench in the case of Dr. K.K. Kaul vs. The State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 22739/21, dated 02.08.2024). The petitioner had already submitted a representation to respondent 2, the Commissioner, Sales Tax (now GST) Department, Jabalpur, which remained undecided. The petitioner sought a direction to resubmit the representation and for it to be decided in light of the Dr. K.K. Kaul judgment within a specified timeframe.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of super-senior pensioners from a date one year prior to their 80th or 85th birthday, as per the judgment in Dr. K.K. Kaul vs. The State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 22739/21)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case is squarely covered by the decision in Dr. K.K. Kaul (supra) and that their representation, submitted to respondent 2, had not been decided. They sought permission to resubmit the representation with a direction for its decision in light of the precedent. Revenue/State's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents/State did not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
None
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :- "a) Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the benefits to super-senior pensioners from the date which means one-year before the day that hitherto was taken as the 80th year/or 85th year and earlier benefits also by one year before the date of birthday. b) Mandamus commanding the respondents to give all the benefits to the petitioner viz-a-viz Super senior pensioners as directed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.22739 of 2021 vide order dated 02.08.2024. c) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit"
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 1 WP-41180-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-J
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.