M/S D.B.Masur Engineers And Contractors vs. The Government Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s D.B. Masur Engineers and Contractors, a proprietary firm engaged in civil construction, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-01A and a consequential order in Form GST DRC-01. These orders were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-3), Hubballi (Respondent No. 5). The petitioner contended that the orders were issued without proper jurisdiction and opportunity. The impugned orders stemmed from an assignment under Section 73 of the KGST Act, 2017, for the year 2019-20. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed a memo stating that Respondent No. 5 had dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 73 of the KGST Act, 2017, vide an order dated June 30, 2023. This dropping of proceedings was communicated to the petitioner.

Held

The Court noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed a memo along with documents indicating that the proceedings initiated under Section 73 of the KGST Act, 2017, which were impugned in the petition, had been dropped by Respondent No. 5 (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) vide an order dated June 30, 2023. This dropping of proceedings was communicated to the petitioner. In view of this development, the Court found that nothing further survived for consideration in the petition as the action that was questioned had been withdrawn by the issuing authority. The Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority if any action contrary to law was taken against them in the future. The ratio decidendi is that once the impugned action is withdrawn or dropped by the authority, the writ petition challenging that action becomes infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders in Form GST DRC-01A and Form GST DRC-01, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-3) under Section 73 of the KGST Act, 2017, were without jurisdiction and proper opportunity to the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard and that the authority lacked jurisdiction. They relied on the fact that the proceedings initiated under Section 73 of the KGST Act, 2017, were subsequently dropped. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents regarding the jurisdiction or the merits of the impugned orders. However, the subsequent dropping of the proceedings by the State authority implies an acknowledgment of the petitioner's grievance or a procedural irregularity.