M/S Amaze Power And Ors vs. Superintendent Of CGST Range - V, Sankrail Division, Howrah Commissionerate And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The appellants, M/s. Amaze Power & Ors., are aggrieved by an order dated 22nd March, 2024, passed by a learned Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court in W.P.A. 6431 of 2024. The Single Bench had declined to grant any interim order in the writ petition. The appellants filed an appeal against this order, along with an application to condone a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal. The respondents are the Superintendent of CGST Range – V, Sankrail Division, Howrah Commissionerate, and others. The impugned order in the writ petition was dated 28th November, 2023.
Held
The Court condoned the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal, finding that sufficient cause had been shown by the appellants. Regarding the appeal against the Single Bench's order declining interim relief, the Court held that there was no scope for granting any interim order. The reasoning was that the correctness of the order dated 28th November, 2023, which was impugned in the writ petition, could only be properly assessed after the parties had filed their affidavits. The Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Bench. Consequently, the appeal and the connected application were dismissed. The Court directed the respondent department to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Bench for filing their affidavit in opposition within two weeks, with a further week for the reply.
Key Issues
1. Whether sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal (Question of fact). 2. Whether the learned Single Bench was justified in declining to grant an interim order in the writ petition (Question of law). Arguments for the Appellants: The appellants sought condonation of delay, arguing that sufficient cause was shown. They also contended that the learned Single Bench erred in not granting an interim order, implying that there were grounds warranting such relief. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The CGST Authority, represented by Mr. K. K. Maiti, did not explicitly argue on the merits of granting an interim order in the judgment. However, their presence and representation indicate opposition to the appellants' plea for interim relief. The Court noted that the correctness of the order under challenge in the writ petition could only be tested after affidavits were filed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) In Re: IA No. CAN 1 of 2024
We have heard Mr. Sandip Choraria, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. K. K. Maiti, learned advocate for the respondent/CGST authority.
There is delay of 11 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we find that sufficient cause has been shown for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation.
IA No. CAN 1 of 2024 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2 In Re. M.A.T. 1111 of 2024
The appellants, who are the writ petitioners and are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Bench dated 22nd March, 2024 in W.P.A. 6431 of 2024, by which the learned Single Bench declined to grant any interim order.
After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the order impugned in the writ petition dated 28th November, 2023, we find that there is no scope for granting any interim order and the correctness of the order can be tested only after the affidavits are being filed, for which direction has already been issued by the learned Single Bench.
Hence, no ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, appeal and the connected application (CAN 2 of 2024) stand dismissed.
The respondent/department is directed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Bench for filing their affidavit in opposition within two weeks from date, reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
Liberty is granted to the appellants to mention before the appropriate Hon’ble Single Bench for inclusion of the matter for hearing.
No costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pallab/Krishnendu AR(Ct.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.