Principal Commissioner CGST Gurugram vs. Technovate Esolutions PVT LTD
Facts
The appellant, Principal Commissioner CGST, Gurugram, challenged an order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh. The respondent is Technovat Esolution Pvt. Ltd. The dispute pertains to GST. The appellant's counsel informed the Court that the impugned CESTAT order had not been implemented. This was because, subsequent to the demand notice/order, a final order was passed in favour of the assessee by the Deputy Commissioner on 22.11.2019. Following this, the respondent-department filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Given these subsequent developments, the appellant's counsel stated that no cause of action survived in the present petition.
Held
The Court held that the present appeal had become infructuous. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, informed the Court that the impugned order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, had not been implemented. This was due to a subsequent final order passed in favour of the assessee by the Deputy Commissioner on 22.11.2019. Furthermore, the respondent-department had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against this subsequent order. In light of these developments, the Court concluded that no cause of action survived in the present petition. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present appeal survives for adjudication in light of subsequent developments, specifically the final order passed in favour of the assessee by the Deputy Commissioner and the subsequent appeal filed by the department before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to the subsequent final order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the assessee and the department's subsequent appeal against that order, the original cause of action leading to the present appeal before the High Court no longer subsists. Therefore, the appeal has become infructuous. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent. However, the fact that the appellant's counsel informed the court of the subsequent developments suggests that the respondent was present and represented.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
STA No.7 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.03.2023
Principal Commissioner CGST,Gurugram
…Appellant
Vs. Technovat Esolution Pvt. Ltd.
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel,
and Mr. Deepesh Kakkar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Udayan Choksi, Advocate,
for the respondent.
**** Ritu Bahri, J. (oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, informs that the impugned order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has since not been implemented, as after the demand notice/order, final order has been passed in favour of the assessee by the Deputy Commissioner on 22.11.2019 and thereafter, the respondent-department preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
In view of the said fact, no cause of action survives in the present petition.
Dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI)
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.