N Rama Rao VS Union Of India

The summary highlights a legal proceeding where various parties, represented by their respective counsels, are involved. The petitioner, Mr. Avinash Reddy, is represented by Mr. B. Mukherjee, Mr. K. Raji Reddy, Mr. A. Tulsi Raj Gokul, and Mr. M. Sai Chandra Haas representing different respondents.

The petitioner, identified as N. Rama Rao from Wyra Municipality, Khammam District, initiated this writ petition, framing it as a public interest litigation.

The petition primarily seeks redressal regarding the alleged inactions of the 4th and 5th respondents in failing to take action against the 6th to 11th respondents concerning the collection and recovery of GST from television subscribers or customers.

The case involves a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation by N. Rama Rao, a resident of Wyra Municipality, Khammam District. The petitioner seeks several reliefs, primarily focusing on the alleged inaction of respondents No. 4 and 5 in dealing with the collection of GST from television subscribers/customers. The petitioner also accuses respondents No. 6 to 11 of illegal business activities related to GST.

Representatives for both the petitioner and respondents are heard by the court, including Mr. Avinash Reddy for the petitioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee for respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. K. Raji Reddy for respondents No. 4 and 5, Mr. A. Tulsi Raj Gokul for respondents No. 8 to 10, and Mr. M. Sai Chandra Haas for respondent No. 11.

Notably, during the proceedings, it is revealed that the petitioner has passed away, prompting the court to consider treating the case as a suo motu writ petition.

The court acknowledges the submission of an affidavit by respondent No. 5, who is the State Tax Officer in Khammam. This respondent serves in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) No. II, Khammam, and holds the position of the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The affidavit submitted by respondent No. 5 is carefully examined by the court, addressing the grievances raised in the petition.

The case is complex, involving legal and constitutional issues regarding GST collection and business activities. The court is tasked with assessing the legality, logic, and constitutionality of the actions of the respondents No. 4 to 11. The ultimate goal is to determine appropriate measures to address the grievances raised and to ensure justice according to the circumstances of the case.

The summary concerns a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation by N. Rama Rao, a resident of Wyra Municipality, Khammam District. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including declaring the inaction of respondents No. 4 and 5 in not initiating actions against respondents No. 6 to 11 for demanding/recovering GST collected from television subscribers/customers, and declaring the actions of respondents No. 6 to 11 as illegal, illogical, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. During the proceedings, it was noted that the petitioner had passed away, and the petition was treated as a suo motu writ petition.

Respondent No. 5, the State Tax Officer, Khammam, filed an affidavit explaining that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced with effect from 01.07.2017, replacing the Value Added Tax (VAT) throughout India, including Telangana. The affidavit outlined the provisions of the GST Act, stating that every supplier making taxable supplies exceeding Rs.20.00 lakhs per year is liable to be registered under the Act and pay tax accordingly.

The affidavit further mentioned that the petitioner had filed applications under the Right to Information Act seeking information about the payment of GST by Master Satellite Operators (MSOs) and Local Cable Operators (LCOs) in Khammam Town, as well as their registration status and any actions taken by the department regarding non-payment of GST.

The case involves a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation by N. Rama Rao, a resident of Wyra Municipality, Khammam District. The petitioner sought several reliefs, primarily focusing on the alleged inaction of certain respondents regarding the collection and recovery of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from television subscribers/customers, as well as the failure to initiate appropriate actions against businesses for non-registration under the GST Act.

Mr. Avinash Reddy, representing the petitioner, argued for the reliefs sought, while counsels for respondents No.1 and 2, No.4 and 5, and No.8 to 11 presented their respective positions.

During the proceedings, it was disclosed that the petitioner had passed away, leading to the request for the petition to be treated as a suo motu writ petition.

Among the respondents, respondent No.5, identified as the State Tax Officer in Khammam, filed an affidavit providing information regarding the implementation of the GST Act in the region. The affidavit explained the taxation provisions under the GST Act, highlighting the liability for registration and tax payment for suppliers exceeding a turnover threshold.

Respondent No.5 further addressed the petitioner’s inquiries made under the Right to Information Act, stating that notices had been issued to certain Master Satellite Operators (MSOs) in Khammam Town for non-registration under the GST Act. The affidavit detailed the actions taken by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) No.II, Khammam, including assessments under Section 63 of the Telangana State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the identified unregistered MSOs.

Section 63 of the Act empowers the proper officer to assess the tax liability of taxable persons who fail to obtain registration or whose registration has been canceled but were liable to pay tax. The officer is authorized to issue assessment orders within a specified timeframe.

The affidavit provided a comprehensive response to the petitioner’s concerns, addressing the legal provisions and actions taken by the tax authorities regarding GST compliance in Khammam Town.

Overall, the proceedings involved arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and respondents’ counsels, with respondent No.5 submitting an affidavit detailing the implementation of the GST Act and actions taken against non-compliant entities.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: