Ravindra Nath Bohare vs. Divisional Railway Manager (Commeree) North Central Railway
Held
The Court held that the demand for license fees for July and August 2022 was per se illegal. This was because the petitioner was admittedly allotted a new place to run his tea stall in July 2022, making the demand for license fees for the old stall for the same period illogical. For the period from January 2022 to June 2022, the Court found a dispute of fact ('oath against oath') regarding whether the shop was closed or open. Such disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court relegated the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents. The respondents were directed to decide the license fees for the period January 2022 to June 2022 afresh, taking into account the contentions raised by the petitioner and the legal notice sent by him. The petition was disposed of with these observations.
Facts
The petitioner, Ravindra Nath Bohare, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' demand for license fees for a tea stall at a railway station. The demand, amounting to Rs. 1,11,285/- with GST, covered the period from January 2022 to November 2022. The petitioner contended that the stall was closed due to ramp construction from January 2022, and an alternate location was provided in July 2022, making the demand for the earlier period illegal. The respondents argued, based on a joint inspection report, that the stall remained operational during the construction, and only its location was changed after the ramp's completion. They asserted the demand for license fees for the period the stall was open was valid.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand for license fees from January 2022 to August 2022 is illegal, considering the petitioner's claim that the stall was closed due to ramp construction and an alternate location was provided in July 2022? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the lease agreement and the factual status of the stall's operation). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the demand for license fees for the period the stall was closed due to ramp construction (January to August 2022) is illegal. The allotment of an alternate accommodation in July 2022 itself indicated that the original stall was not operational. Therefore, the demand for license fees for the period January to August 2022 should be quashed. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that a joint inspection report indicated the tea stall was never closed during ramp construction. The petitioner's stall was only relocated after the ramp construction was completed. Therefore, the demand for license fees for the period January 2022 to November 2022, when the stall remained open, is justified and the petition should be dismissed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against any particular order but is preferred being aggrieved by the action on the part of respondents, by which the respondents had directed closer of the tea stall run by the petitioner in wake of non deposit of license fees.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents are demanding license fees from the month of January,2022 till November,2022 amounting to Rs.1,11,285/- with GST, which is per se illegal, as for the aforesaid period the stall in question was closed due to construction of a ramp at the railway station and only due to the aforesaid fact in the month of July,2022 an alternate place was given to the petitioner for running the stall
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.