Ankur Garg And Associates And Anr vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST Ludhiana
Held
The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Sourabh Goel, that the representation dated 3.12.2020 (Annexure P-9) submitted by the petitioners would be decided at the earliest, and in any case, not later than one week. The learned counsel for the petitioners expressed satisfaction with this statement. Consequently, the Court found no further order to be necessary in the present petition and disposed of the same. The ratio decidendi is that when a respondent authority undertakes to decide a representation within a specified timeframe to the satisfaction of the petitioner, the High Court may dispose of the writ petition on that basis without delving into the merits of the representation itself. No specific GST provisions were discussed or interpreted. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioners, Ankur Garg and another, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana. The petitioners had submitted a representation dated 3.12.2020, which was marked as Annexure P-9. The present petition was filed seeking a decision on this representation. The tax period and the specific GST provisions or amounts in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the filing of the writ petition is also not detailed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authority is obligated to decide the representation dated 3.12.2020 (Annexure P-9) submitted by the petitioners in a timely manner? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners sought a prompt decision on their representation dated 3.12.2020. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited in the judgment regarding this contention. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through its counsel, submitted that the representation dated 3.12.2020 would be decided at the earliest, not later than one week from the date of the statement. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited in the judgment regarding this contention.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CWP-21829-2020 Date of Decision: 17.12.2020 Ankur Garg and another ...Petitioners Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the respondent. *** RAJAN GUPTA, J. (Oral)
Case has been heard through Video Conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.
At the outset, Mr. Goel submits that the representation dated 3.12.2020 (Annexure P-9) submitted by the petitioners shall be decided at the earliest in any case not later than a week. Learned counsel for the petitioners is satisfied with this statement.
In view of above, no further order needs to be passed in the present petition and the same stands disposed of. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 17, 2020 (KARAMJIT SINGH) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2020.12.17 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.