M/S Xenolith Metals And Alloys Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the subsequent order dated 01.10.2019, which rejected the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration. The Court noted that the petitioner admitted the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CST Act, 2017, against this rejection order. Therefore, the original purpose of the writ petition, which was to seek a direction for the decision on the revocation application, was no longer relevant. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition seeking a direction for adjudication of an application becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed when the application is subsequently decided, and an alternative statutory remedy is available against that decision. The operative direction was to dismiss the present petition as infructuous.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Xenolith Metals & Alloys Private Limited, a registered dealer under the GST Act, had its registration certificate cancelled by an order dated 19.01.2019. The petitioner filed an application for revocation of this cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017. The grievance in the writ petition was that this application was not being decided. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petition had become infructuous because the competent authority had subsequently passed an order dated 01.10.2019, rejecting the application for revocation. It was admitted that the remedy against this rejection order is an appeal under Section 107 of the CST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition seeking a direction for the decision on an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation is maintainable when the application has subsequently been rejected, and an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner initially approached the High Court by way of a writ petition because their application for revocation of GST registration cancellation was not being decided, causing prejudice. However, upon the subsequent rejection of their application and the availability of a statutory appeal, the petitioner conceded that the writ petition had become infructuous. Respondents' contention: The State did not file any specific arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the subsequent order, but implicitly, by not opposing the dismissal as infructuous, accepted the petitioner's submission.