2022 (3) TMI 1572 - HC - GST

Prohibition on 1st respondent from proceeding with the consumer complaints - Joinder, mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties - whether the petitioner herein was either a necessary party or the proper party in the consumer complaints filed for the alleged deficiency of service by the respective hotels (the 4th respondent in the respective writ petitions) in the complaints filed by the 3rd respondent in these writ petitions? - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, the petitioner is neither necessary nor a proper party in the said proceeding. The 1st respondent Tribunal ought to have entertained the applications filed by the petitioner for deleting their name from the respective consumer complaints. If there was any complaint regarding the extra collection of tax by the hotels, it was open for the complainant (3rd respondent in the respective writ petitions) to file appropriate applications under Section 54 of the TNGST Act for refund of the excess tax, if any, that may have been cancelled. Clearly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was unnecessary. These writ petitions allowed by directing the 1st respondent/District Consumer Forum to delete the name of the petitioner from the respective consumer complaints and pass appropriate orders in the complaints filed by the respective 3rd respondent in the respective consumer petitions before it.

Summary

Issues:
- Prohibition sought against Consumer Forum proceedings
- Jurisdiction under Article 226 vs. Article 227
- Petitioner's status as a party in consumer complaints
- Application of principles of Code of Civil Procedure
- Petitioner's necessity as a party in the proceedings

Prohibition Against Consumer Forum Proceedings:
The writ petitions were filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition against the 1st respondent, District Consumer Forum, to prevent them from proceeding with consumer complaints initiated by the 3rd respondent against the 4th respondent hotels. The petitioner, a Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, was named as a respondent in these complaints.

Jurisdiction under Article 226 vs. Article 227:
Although the writ petitions were filed for a prohibition, it was noted that the appropriate remedy against the Consumer Forum's order rejecting the request to delete the petitioner's name was available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that while Article 226 was invoked by the petitioner, the wider power under Article 227 for superintendence of all courts could have been utilized.

Petitioner's Status as a Party in Consumer Complaints:
The Court emphasized that the Consumer Forum should have determined whether the petitioner was a necessary or proper party in the consumer complaints alleging service deficiencies by the 4th respondent hotels. While the Code of Civil Procedure was not strictly applicable, the principles of joinder, mis-joinder, and non-joinder of parties were deemed relevant in the proceedings before the Forum.

Application of Principles of Code of Civil Procedure:
It was highlighted that the petitioner was neither necessary nor a proper party in the consumer complaints. The Court opined that the Consumer Forum should have considered the petitioner's applications to remove their name from the complaints. Any issues related to excess tax collection by the hotels could have been addressed separately under the TNGST Act.

Petitioner's Necessity as a Party in the Proceedings:
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the petitioner's involvement in the proceedings was unnecessary. As a result, the Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the Consumer Forum to delete the petitioner's name from the respective consumer complaints and issue appropriate orders in the complaints filed by the 3rd respondent.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petitions, with no costs imposed, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions. The judgment clarified the petitioner's status as a party in the consumer complaints, the application of procedural principles, and the distinction between jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.