M/S Radico Khaitan Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax And 5 Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Radico Khaitan Limited, filed a writ petition challenging adjudication notices dated November 14, 2019, November 15, 2019, and November 16, 2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax (respondent no. 1). These notices sought adjudication under Section 73(1) of the UPGST and CGST Act for the period July 2017 to July 2019. During the pendency of the writ petition, the adjudication proceedings were terminated in favor of the petitioner by an order dated July 30, 2021, passed by respondent no. 1. This subsequent order was brought on record by the petitioner through a rejoinder affidavit. The learned Special Counsel for the revenue did not dispute the correctness of these facts.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This decision was based on the fact that the adjudication proceedings, which were the subject of the challenge in the writ petition, had been terminated in favor of the petitioner by an order dated July 30, 2021. The revenue did not dispute this subsequent development. Consequently, the original adjudication notices were no longer operative or in dispute. The ratio decidendi is that once the action under challenge is nullified or resolved in favor of the petitioner during the pendency of a writ petition, the petition itself becomes academic and should be dismissed as infructuous. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition challenging adjudication notices under Section 73(1) of the UPGST and CGST Act for the period July 2017 to July 2019 has become infructuous in light of the subsequent order dated July 30, 2021, terminating the adjudication proceedings in favor of the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the subsequent order terminating the adjudication proceedings in their favor rendered the challenge to the original notices moot. The revenue, through its learned Special Counsel, did not dispute the factual assertion that the adjudication proceedings had been terminated in favor of the petitioner. Therefore, the revenue did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim that the petition had become infructuous.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1329 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Radico Khaitan Limited Respondent :- Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the revenue.
Present petition was filed to challenge the adjudication notices dated 14.11.2019, 15.11.2019 and 16.11.2019 issued by respondent no.1, seeking adjudication under Section 73(1) of UPGST and CGST Act for the period July 2017 to July 2019. During pendency of this petition, the adjudication proceedings have been terminated in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 30 July 2021 passed by respondent no.
That order has been brought on record by means of the rejoinder affidavit filed today.
Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the revenue, does not dispute the correctness of the facts noted above.
In view of the above, present writ petition is rendered infructuous a
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.