High Court dismisses petition seeking mandamus against GST Council on recycled plastic tax concerns

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Plastic Recycling Industrial Association seeking mandamus against the Goods and Services Tax Council to address concerns about GST on recycled plastic products. The Court held that the Council's role does not include adjudicating public grievances, emphasizing the lack of statutory mechanism for such adjudication. It found the petition lacking bona fides and overturned the Single Judge's direction to the Council, ultimately dismissing the writ petition on appeal by the Union of India and the Goods and Services Tax Council.

---

---

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.

---