M/S Anjanadri Constructions vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This was based on the submission by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner's application for rectification had been considered and disposed of in terms of an order dated August 29, 2019. The Court reasoned that since the relief sought by the petitioner – the consideration and disposal of their rectification application – had purportedly been granted, the purpose of the writ petition was fulfilled. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out their remedies otherwise permissible in law, subject to all just exceptions. No specific finding was made on the merits of the rectification application itself, nor was the validity of the respondent's order dated August 29, 2019, adjudicated.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anjanadri Constructions, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST West Commissionerate, to consider their rectification application dated April 2, 2019, filed under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner also sought a speaking order on their application and a stay on coercive steps until the order was passed. The respondent revenue authority placed on record an order dated August 29, 2019, stating that the petitioner's rectification application had been considered and disposed of. Based on this submission, the Court considered the petition to be infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's writ petition is rendered infructuous in light of the respondent's submission that the rectification application has been considered and disposed of? (Question of fact and law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to consider their rectification application and pass a speaking order. The core of the petition was the alleged non-consideration or inadequate consideration of their application. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner's rectification application had already been considered and disposed of by an order dated August 29, 2019. Therefore, the writ petition, which sought this very consideration, had become infructuous.