Sanjay Mittal vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Held

The Court found the petitioner's prayer to be fair. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the representation by passing a speaking order within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law after hearing the petitioner. The Court did not delve into the merits of the detention order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of deciding the representation. The ratio decidendi is that a representation made concerning a detention order under GST laws should be decided expeditiously and in a speaking manner by the concerned authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay Mittal, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order of detention (Form MOV-06) issued by respondent No. 3 under Section 129(1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's bus had been detained since August 2, 2021. A representation (Annexure P-8) was made to respondent No. 3. The petitioner sought a direction for respondent No. 3 to decide this representation. The respondents, represented by Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana, did not oppose the petitioner's prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct respondent No. 3 to decide the petitioner's representation regarding the detention of his bus, as contemplated under Section 129(1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and allied Acts. The petitioner argued that his bus has been detained since August 2, 2021, and a representation was made to respondent No. 3. He would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No. 3 to decide this representation. The respondents did not oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.