Vipin Kumar vs. Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Vipin Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking a direction for the respondents to decide his pending appeal in a time-bound manner. The appeal was filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted on instructions from the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Ludhiana, that the petitioner's appeal would be decided within a period of three months. The High Court noted this submission and considered the writ petition to be rendered infructuous.

Held

The High Court held that in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents, who undertook to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within a period of three months, the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court directed that the appeal be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority within the stipulated timeframe of three months. The Court explicitly clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the matter. The ratio decidendi is that when a respondent undertakes to comply with the prayer for expeditious disposal within a specified period, the writ petition seeking such a direction becomes infructuous, and the court will monitor compliance with the undertaking.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should direct the respondents to decide the pending appeal filed by the petitioner in a time-bound manner, as per the petitioner's prayer. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a directive from the High Court to expedite the decision on his appeal, implying a need for timely resolution of his GST-related matter. The petitioner relied on the general principle of expeditious disposal of legal proceedings. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by their counsel and acting on instructions from the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Ludhiana, agreed to decide the petitioner's appeal within a period of three months. They did not raise any counter-arguments against the petitioner's prayer for a time-bound decision, but rather provided an undertaking for compliance.