Mr. Sunil Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was granted liberty to prefer an appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, provided the condition of pre-deposit was fulfilled. The Court also accepted the statement made by the learned counsel for the State that if such an appeal were preferred within the aforesaid period, it would be heard on merits and decided within a period of four weeks from the date of its filing. The Court expressed hope and expectation that the appropriate authority would consider and decide the appeal on its own merit with reasonable dispatch, and that the appellate authority would pass a speaking order, assigning reasons. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the facts or law, leaving all issues open. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to challenge the appellate order if required.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar, proprietor of M/s Gaurav Pharma, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The petition challenged an unspecified order or action passed by tax authorities concerning GST. The respondents included the Union of India, the State of Bihar, and various CGST and State Tax authorities. After hearing the parties, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner intended to file an appeal within four weeks and fulfill the pre-deposit condition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to do so. The State's counsel assured that if an appeal was filed within the stipulated period, it would be heard on merits within four weeks of its filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order/action within a period of four weeks from today, subject to fulfilling the pre-deposit condition? 2. Whether the appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on its merits within a period of four weeks from the date of its filing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal and have it decided expeditiously. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited in the judgment regarding this procedural request. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents did not object to the petitioner's request for liberty to file an appeal. They agreed to have the appeal heard on merits if filed within the specified timeframe.