M/S. Murudeswar Ceramics LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in 2021. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are various authorities of the Union of India, including the Ministry of Finance, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and Central GST and Central Excise authorities. The case has been pending for approximately three years. The order sheet indicates that on September 26, 2022, the petitioner was granted two weeks to comply with office objections. However, these objections remained unaddressed. The matter was listed again for orders regarding non-compliance, and on the current date, the petitioner was not represented.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed for two primary reasons: non-prosecution and non-compliance with office objections. The Court noted that the petitioner was not represented when the matter was called, indicating a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. Furthermore, despite being granted sufficient opportunities, including a specific two-week period in September 2022, the petitioner failed to comply with the office objections. The petition had been pending for approximately three years since its filing in 2021. The Court found that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the petition. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with office objections. No specific GST provisions or amounts in dispute were discussed as the dismissal was based on procedural deficiencies.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution, considering the petitioner's absence and lack of representation when the matter was called. 2. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-compliance with office objections, despite multiple opportunities granted to the petitioner. The petitioner's side, represented by Sri. Raghavendra.B.Hanjer, Advocate, was absent and did not present any arguments. The respondents, Union of India and other GST authorities, did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on procedural grounds. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to prosecute the case and comply with procedural requirements.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
When the matter is called, the petitioner is not represented. When the matter is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 26.09.2022, on that day, two weeks time was granted to do the needful. Despite granting time, office objections are not complied with.
The petition is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections for the second time. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite giving sufficient opportunity, the office objections are not complied with. NC: 2024:KHC-D:12790 WP No. 103146 of 2021
Furthermore, the petition is filed in the year 2021. Now we are in the month of September 2024. The petition is pending for almost three years. As already noted above, when the matter is called, the petitioner is not represented. It appears that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections. (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.