M/S Pooran Chand Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's application for rectification of mistake, filed under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, was admittedly pending. The Court expected the respondent authority to decide this application expeditiously. The reasoning was based on the fact that the application had been pending and the respondent had not disputed this. The Court directed that the decision should preferably be made within a period of six weeks from the date the petitioner furnishes a copy of the Court's order to the respondent authority. The Court also emphasized that the respondent authority must pass an order in accordance with the law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the core issue was the delay in deciding the rectification application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pooran Chand Gupta, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur. The petitioner had previously received an order in appeal dated 30.11.2022 from the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur. Following this, on 16.01.2023, the petitioner submitted an application for rectification of mistake under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite sending four reminders, the rectification application remained undecided. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court for the respondent authority to decide the pending application expeditiously, provide a hearing, and pass a speaking order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority is obligated to decide the pending rectification application filed by the petitioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, expeditiously and pass a speaking order? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their application for rectification of mistake, filed on 16.01.2023, had been pending for an extended period despite multiple reminders. They sought a judicial directive for the respondent authority to decide the application promptly, grant an opportunity of hearing, and issue a reasoned order. The petitioner relied on the general principles of administrative law requiring timely disposal of applications. Respondent's Contention: The respondent acknowledged that the application remained pending and stated that it would be decided expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of Section 74 of the Act.