Facts of the Case

M/S Kalpaka Chemicals Private Limited, Thoothukudi, represented by its Managing Director Shri S. Ganesan, had submitted representations dated 10.12.2021 and 15.02.2022 to the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai GST Commissionerate. When these representations remained undisposed, the company approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to objectively consider and dispose of the representations in accordance with law and on merits.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the GST authorities to dispose of the petitioner's pending representations.
  2. The time frame within which such representations ought to be decided.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner submitted that its representations dated 10.12.2021 and 15.02.2022 had remained pending without disposal despite lapse of considerable time.
  • It was contended that the respondents were obligated to consider and decide the representations on merits and in accordance with law.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's representations would be disposed of within eight weeks by the second respondent.

Court Order/Findings

  • Recording the submission made on behalf of the respondents, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
  • The Court clarified that before passing such orders, the petitioner shall also be heard.
  • No costs were awarded.

Important Clarification

  • Where a taxpayer's representation to a GST authority remains undecided for an extended period, a writ court will typically not adjudicate the underlying grievance itself but will issue a time-bound mandamus directing disposal on merits, coupled with an opportunity of hearing.
  • Such an order does not amount to any expression of opinion on the substance of the representation; it only compels the authority to act within a fixed timeline.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226, Constitution of India — invoked to seek a writ of mandamus compelling disposal of pending representations.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in favour of the Assessee to the extent that the department was bound to decide the representations within eight weeks after hearing the petitioner, though no finding was rendered on the merits of the underlying grievance.

Related Case Laws

No related case laws are available on this site at present for cross-reference on this specific point.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
  • Case No.: W.P.(MD) No.5986 of 2022
  • Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice C. Saravanan
  • Date of Order: 6 April 2022

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.