3E Infotech vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the Writ Appeal. This conclusion was reached based on the consistent absence of representation from the appellant's side on the current and previous hearing dates. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Appeal for non-prosecution. No costs were awarded. The specific order or action under challenge in the original writ petition (W.P.(MD).No.6226 of 2019) and the tax period or amount in dispute were not detailed in this judgment.

Facts

The appellant, M/s. 3E Infotech, represented by its Proprietor David Enstin, filed a Writ Appeal (W.A.(MD).No.1542 of 2021) before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. This appeal was against an order passed by the High Court in W.P.(MD).No.6226 of 2019 dated 15.03.2021. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli. The matter was listed for dismissal. The appellant had no representation on the current hearing date and also on the previous hearing date, 20.08.2026. The Writ Appeal was filed in the year 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant is interested in prosecuting the Writ Appeal filed in 2021? The appellant did not appear before the Court. The Court inferred from the lack of representation on two consecutive hearing dates that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the case. The respondent did not present any arguments as the matter was listed for dismissal due to non-prosecution.