Imran S/O Harun vs. The Commissioner Of

Facts

The petitioner, Imran, the driver of vehicle no. RJ 09 GC 1078, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to Respondent No. 3, the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement)-3, to create a temporary ID for payment of tax and penalty. This payment was ordered by Respondent No. 2, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), vide order no. KGST/AP-30 and 49/2019-20 dated 26.08.2022. The petitioner sought to pay the tax and penalty as directed by the appellate authority. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the goods and conveyance had been released by the respondents after the payment of tax and penalty of Rs. 21,91,324.00, as ordered by Respondent No. 2. Copies of the Release Order (Form GST MOV-05) and the Payment Receipt were produced as Annexures-N and O.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised in the writ petition. Instead, the petitioner filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The memo stated that the respondents had released the goods and conveyance to Shri Takesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Kolhapur Himachala Roadways, after the payment of tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 21,91,324.00, as ordered by Respondent No. 2. Copies of the Release Order (Form GST MOV-05) and the Payment Receipt were produced as Annexures. In view of this development, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Therefore, no finding was rendered on the legal questions, and no ratio decidendi was established. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the creation of a temporary ID for payment of tax and penalty as ordered by Respondent No. 2, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a temporary ID was necessary to facilitate the payment of the tax and penalty ordered by the appellate authority, thereby enabling the release of the goods and conveyance. The prayer was for the court to direct Respondent No. 3 to provide this facility. Respondents' Argument: The respondents did not file any specific arguments or objections in response to the writ petition as recorded in the judgment. However, the subsequent memo filed by the petitioner indicates that the respondents ultimately released the goods and conveyance after the tax and penalty were paid.