Kerala HC Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Order Quashing as Action Initiated Against Erring Supplier

Krishna Electric Company Vs Superintendent of Central GST & Central Exercise (Kerala High Court)

The case of Krishna Electric Company versus the Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, presented before the Kerala High Court, addresses significant concerns regarding GST law compliance. The petition seeks redressal through various writs, aiming to challenge specific orders and actions undertaken by the concerned authorities. This article provides a detailed analysis of the court’s judgment and its implications.

Detailed Analysis:

• Petitioner’s Claims: The petitioner, Krishna Electric Company, invokes Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to seek relief from certain orders, namely Ext. P10 and Ext. P11, issued by the Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise.
• Reliefs Sought: The reliefs sought by the petitioner encompass a range of demands, including the quashing of aforementioned orders, issuance of writs of mandamus for appropriate action under GST laws against the fifth respondent (M/S. Spanila Sanitary Ware), and directives to prevent coercive recovery proceedings by other respondents until the fifth respondent’s case is addressed.
• Respondents’ Defense: Mr. Sreelal Warrier, representing the respondents, asserts that action has been initiated against the alleged erring supplier, M/S. Spanila Sanitary Ware. Consequently, he contends that the petition stands moot and should be dismissed.
• Court’s Ruling: Considering the submissions made, the court concludes that since action has been initiated against the fifth respondent, the petitioner’s concerns have been addressed. As a result, the court dismisses the writ petition.

Conclusion: The judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Krishna Electric Company versus the Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise signifies the importance of adherence to GST laws and regulations. While the petitioner’s grievances were acknowledged, the court’s decision underscores the efficacy of legal mechanisms in addressing concerns related to tax compliance. This analysis sheds light on the intricacies of the case and its implications for both taxpayers and tax authorities.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P10 and Ext. P11 orders passed by the 1 respondent,

ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to take appropriate action under the GST laws against the 5th respondent for realising the tax component with interest as specified in Ext.P3 letter;

iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent, 3rd respondent and 4th respondent not to take any coercive recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext. P10 and P11 orders till the 5th respondent is proceeded first for the realisation of tax collected and not remitted by it;

iv) to pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

v) to dispense with the production of English translation of the documents which are in the vernacular language and produced in the writ petition;

AND

vi) to award the cost of the proceeding to the petitioner”

2. Mr Sreelal Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that action has been initiated against the alleged erring supplier, the 5^th respondent.

In view of the aforesaid statement, nothing survives in the present writ petition; hence, it is dismissed.