M/S Khaira And Sons (A Partnership Firm) vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petition could be disposed of by issuing a direction to the concerned authorities to decide the representations filed by the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's representations were pending and that the respondents had no objection to a direction being issued for their decision. Therefore, the Court directed the authorities concerned to decide the representations filed by the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST levy itself, as the primary prayer was for the adjudication of pending representations. The ratio decidendi is that when representations are pending and no objection is raised by the revenue, the High Court can direct the authorities to decide them within a stipulated time frame.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Khaira and Sons, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the levy of GST. The petitioner had submitted representations dated May 7, 2022, to respondent authorities, specifically respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Executive Engineer, State Agricultural Marketing Board, and Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Parishad), concerning the GST levy. These representations were pending adjudication. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court for these authorities to decide their pending representations as per law. The counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Executive Engineer) had no objection to such a direction being issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct respondent authorities to decide the pending representations of the petitioner concerning the levy of GST, as per law? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their representations dated May 7, 2022, regarding the GST levy were pending adjudication and sought a direction from the Court for the concerned authorities (respondent nos. 2 and 3) to decide these representations expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The petitioner relied on the principle that authorities should decide pending representations promptly. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 (State and Executive Engineer) stated that they had no objection if a direction was issued to the concerned authorities to decide the representations. This indicates the State did not contest the petitioner's request for a decision on the representations.