9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1398 - HC - GSTObligation of GST council to address grievance raised by General public - Withdrawal of levy of tax on the recycled plastic products - HELD THAT - There is no mechanism provided in the Constitution or any other statute for the Goods and Services Tax Council to adjudicate the grievances raised by the general public. There is no mechanism for consideration and disposal of representations made by the general public to the Council after conducting personal hearing of the parties who make such representations. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has not brought to our notice any provision in the Constitution or any other statute which imposes a duty on the Goods and Services Tax Council to adjudicate on the grievances raised by the members of the general public with regard to imposition and levy of goods and services tax on any product. Article 226 of the Constitution provides that every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority orders and writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. It is well-settled that a mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies for it has got sufficient legal interest - The writ of mandamus is limited to the enforcement of the obligation imposed by law. The learned Single Judge has wrongly exercised his discretion in issuing a direction to the Goods and Services Tax Council to consider Ext.P2 representation and pass orders thereon, after conducting personal hearing of the writ petitioners - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Representation by Plastic Recycling Industrial Association regarding GST on recycled plastic products. 2. Writ petition filed for mandamus against Goods and Services Tax Council. 3. Challenge to the judgment by Union of India and Goods and Services Tax Council. 4. Interpretation of the functions and duties of the Goods and Services Tax Council. 5. Lack of statutory mechanism for the Council to adjudicate public grievances. 6. Analysis of the power of High Courts to issue writs like mandamus. 7. Lack of bona fides in filing the writ petition. 8. Reference to relevant judgments by the Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court. 9. Dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court. Analysis: 1. The Plastic Recycling Industrial Association raised concerns about the 18% GST on recycled plastic products, submitting representations to various authorities. They filed a writ petition seeking mandamus for prompt disposal of their representations. 2. The writ petition requested the Goods and Services Tax Council to address the representations within a specific timeframe. The Single Judge directed the Council to consider the representations and pass orders after hearing the petitioners. 3. The Union of India and the Goods and Services Tax Council appealed the judgment, arguing that the Council's role does not involve adjudicating public representations and conducting hearings. 4. The Court examined the constitutional provisions outlining the Council's functions, emphasizing that there is no statutory mechanism for the Council to address grievances from the general public regarding tax impositions. 5. It was highlighted that the power of High Courts to issue mandamus is limited to enforcing statutory duties where the petitioner has a legal right. The lack of a legal duty on the Council to address public grievances was underscored. 6. The Court noted the lack of bona fides in filing the writ petition, as it was seemingly done simultaneously with sending representations, indicating a lack of genuine intent. 7. Citing relevant judgments, the Court emphasized the importance of not compelling adjudication of representations by administrative bodies through judicial orders. 8. The Court found that the Single Judge erred in directing the Council to consider the representations, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petition without costs.
|
