Supersmelt Sponge Private Limited vs. Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Central Tax, & Ors

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court accepted the submission made by the petitioner that the goods and vehicle in question had already been released and that the tax, penalty, and fine arising from the confiscation proceeding had been paid. Based on this, the Court concluded that there was no scope for granting any further relief in the matter. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. The Court also directed that the relevant documents supporting the petitioner's submission be kept with the record.

Facts

The petitioner, Supersmelt Sponge Private Limited, filed a writ petition (WPA 6098 of 2019) before the High Court against the Superintendent (Anti Evasion), Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate, Bolpur, and others. The petition concerned goods and vehicles that were subject to a confiscation proceeding. The petitioner submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous because the goods and vehicle in question had already been released, and the tax, penalty, and fine arising from the confiscation proceeding had already been paid. Consequently, no further relief could be granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous, rendering further adjudication unnecessary, given that the goods and vehicle have been released and the associated tax, penalty, and fine have been paid. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition had become infructuous. Their submission was based on the fact that the goods and vehicle had already been released and all dues (tax, penalty, and fine) related to the confiscation proceeding had been settled. Therefore, there was no remaining scope for the Court to grant any further relief, making the petition unnecessary to pursue on its merits. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the CGST authority.