M/S. Coal Mines Associated Traders PVT LTD And Anr vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Cx Bolpur Commissionerrate And Ors

Held

The Court held that the learned Single Bench was convinced that the matter required consideration, as evidenced by its direction to file affidavits and short written notes of arguments. The Court found that the appellants had made out a case for entertaining the writ petition. Consequently, the Court reasoned that if a prima facie case was established, the appellants should be protected by an appropriate interim order to prevent the writ petition from becoming infructuous. Therefore, the Court stayed the order dated 30th August, 2022, and all further proceedings thereon until the next hearing date of the writ petition. The respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks, with a reply to be filed within three weeks thereafter. The writ petition was listed before the appropriate bench after nine weeks. The appeal and connected application were disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The appellants, M/s Coal Mines Associates Traders Private Limited & Anr., are aggrieved by an order dated 30th November, 2022, passed by a learned Single Bench in W.P.A. 25250 of 2022. The Single Bench had refused to grant an interim order and simultaneously directed the concerned authority to proceed with impugned proceedings dated 30th August, 2022. The appellants contend that the Single Bench found the matter required consideration and directed affidavits and written notes of arguments, indicating a prima facie case for entertaining the writ petition. They argue that if a prima facie case is made out, they should be protected by an interim order, otherwise, the writ petition could become infructuous. The respondents are the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bolpur Commissionerate & Anr.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench erred in not granting an interim order when it prima facie found that the writ petition required consideration and had directed affidavits to be filed? Appellants' Arguments: The appellants argued that the learned Single Bench had acknowledged the need for consideration by directing affidavits and written notes of arguments. They contended that if a prima facie case was made out, as suggested by the Single Bench's actions, then an interim order should have been granted to protect the writ petition from becoming infructuous. They relied on the principle that a litigant making out a prima facie case should be protected by an interim order. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents in this intra-Court appeal.