Js Nagpal Enterprises vs. Commissioner CGST (Delhi West) New Delhi & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, JS Nagpal Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a Provisional Attachment Order dated June 25, 2020, passed by the Commissioner CGST (Delhi West). The respondents are the Commissioner CGST (Delhi West) and another unnamed authority. The petition was listed for hearing. However, when the matter was called, no one appeared for the petitioner, and no rejoinder had been filed. The counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the impugned Provisional Attachment Order had lapsed and a fresh Provisional Order was passed on October 11, 2021. Consequently, the Court noted that the petitioner appeared to have lost interest in pursuing the case.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the submission by the respondent that the Provisional Attachment Order dated June 25, 2020, which was the subject of the challenge, had lapsed. Additionally, a fresh Provisional Order had been issued on October 11, 2021. In light of these developments, the Court concluded that the petitioner was no longer interested in pursuing the matter. The ratio decidendi is that a challenge to an order that has lapsed and been replaced by a subsequent order, coupled with the petitioner's non-appearance and failure to file a rejoinder, renders the petition infructuous and liable for dismissal for non-prosecution. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition in default and for non-prosecution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to the lapse of the impugned Provisional Attachment Order dated June 25, 2020, and the subsequent passing of a fresh Provisional Order on October 11, 2021? Petitioner's arguments: The judgment does not record any arguments made by the petitioner, as no one appeared on their behalf and no rejoinder was filed. Revenue's arguments: The respondent submitted that the petition had become infructuous because the Provisional Attachment Order dated June 25, 2020, which was under challenge, had lapsed. Furthermore, a fresh Provisional Order had been passed by the authorities on October 11, 2021, rendering the challenge to the earlier order moot.