State Of Punjab vs. M/S S P Rice Exports And Another

Facts

The State of Punjab, as the petitioner, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh seeking to quash a judgment dated July 19, 2024. This judgment was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, in GST Appeal No. 169/2023-2024, filed under Section 107 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The respondent in this case is M/s S.P. Rice Exports. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 (M/s S.P. Rice Exports) filed an application for refund, which has since been allowed. Consequently, the State's counsel submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition filed by the State of Punjab has become infructuous. This conclusion was reached based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the State, who, on instructions, stated that the refund application filed by respondent No. 1 had been allowed during the pendency of the writ petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original challenge to the Deputy Commissioner's judgment. The reasoning is solely based on the supervening event of the refund being granted, which negates the need for the High Court to adjudicate on the quashing of the appellate order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ-petition as infructuous. No specific section of the GST Act was discussed in relation to the infructuousness, other than the appeal provision under which the original appeal was filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the State of Punjab is rendered infructuous due to the subsequent allowance of the refund application by respondent No. 1, as per Section 107 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Contentions: Petitioner (State of Punjab): Submitted, on instructions, that the writ petition has become infructuous because the refund application filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed during the pendency of the present proceedings. Respondent No. 1: No arguments were recorded for respondent No. 1 as none appeared.