M/S.Kalleppuram Metals vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kalleppuram Metals, is challenging an order of assessment (Ext.P3) passed under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P4) before the First Appellate Authority, the 3rd respondent. The present writ petition seeks a specific relief: a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the pending appeal within a stipulated timeframe. The revenue or State is represented by various authorities, including the Union of India and the State of Kerala, through their respective departments and officials.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition, being limited in its prayer, should be disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax Appeals, to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal. This decision is based on the petitioner's request for a time-bound consideration of their pending appeal. The Court reasoned that it is appropriate to direct the appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal expeditiously. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can direct statutory appellate authorities to dispose of pending appeals within a reasonable time, especially when the petitioner is not seeking adjudication on the merits of the assessment order in the writ petition. The operative direction is that the 3rd respondent must consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Any recovery proceedings will remain suspended until the appeal is decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Joint Commissioner of State Tax Appeals) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner within a time-bound manner, as per Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal (Ext.P4) is pending before the First Appellate Authority and they are seeking a direction for its expeditious disposal. They did not raise any specific arguments regarding the merits of the assessment order itself in this writ petition, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the appeal. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Government Pleader appeared and was heard. No specific arguments were recorded on behalf of the revenue or State regarding the petitioner's request for a time-bound disposal of the appeal.