Hardcastle Restaurants Private Limited And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court held that it could not entertain a fresh writ petition while W.P. No. 3536/2019 was in transit to this Court, particularly because the Supreme Court had not granted liberty to entertain any fresh writ petition and had not passed any interim order. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had only granted liberty to apply for interim relief in the transferred W.P. No. 3536/2019. To balance equities, the Court directed the Registry to list W.P. No. 3536/2019 on 29th June 2020, if it had been received. If the paper book had not been received, the petitioner was given liberty to file a complete set of the paper book along with an application to list the matter on the same date. The present writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Hardcastle Restaurants Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with anti-profiteering proceedings under Section 171 of the CGST Act until a related writ petition (W.P. No. 3536/2019) was decided by the Delhi High Court. The initial anti-profiteering proceedings had resulted in an order dated 16th November 2018, which was later remanded for fresh determination by the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 3492/2018. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 3536/2019 before the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the proceedings or for clarifications. The Bombay High Court had granted interim orders to adjourn proceedings. W.P. No. 3536/2019 was transferred to the Delhi High Court by the Supreme Court, with liberty to apply for interim relief. The present writ petition was filed because the respondents were allegedly trying to make W.P. No. 3536/2019 infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court can entertain a fresh writ petition while W.P. No. 3536/2019, transferred from the Bombay High Court, is pending transit to this Court, especially when the Supreme Court did not pass any interim order on the transfer petition. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the present writ petition was necessitated because the respondents were attempting to render W.P. No. 3536/2019 infructuous by proceeding with the anti-profiteering hearings. They emphasized that the Bombay High Court had previously granted interim protection, restraining the respondent from conducting hearings in W.P. No. 3536/2019. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.