Chenbaga Raman Pillai Suresh vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And C.Excise

Held

The Court recorded that both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent submitted that the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition had been granted to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court noted that nothing further survived for adjudication. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's arguments regarding the order being cryptic or non-speaking, nor did it analyze the legality or arbitrariness of the respondent's action. The reasoning for the decision was solely based on the concession made by both parties that the petitioner's prayer had been fulfilled. The operative direction was to close the Writ Petition as nothing remained for adjudication. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Chenbaga Raman Pillai Suresh, proprietor of Sri Bagavathi Blue Metals, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Superintendent of CGST & C.Excise, Nagercoil (Rural). The petitioner sought to quash this order, describing it as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, and arbitrary, and further sought a direction to revoke the cancellation of his GSTN registration. The order under challenge was issued by the respondent authority. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history relevant to the High Court's decision is that the matter reached the court for adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the respondent is cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, and arbitrary, warranting its quashment under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the revocation of the cancellation of his GSTN registration? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the order passed by the respondent was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, and arbitrary. The petitioner sought the quashing of this order and a direction to revoke the cancellation of his GSTN registration. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the joint submission by both parties indicated that the prayer sought by the petitioner had been granted.