M/S Ess Ess Technofaba PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by the counsel for both parties. Acknowledging that the petitioner had already availed of the remedy of filing an appeal, which was pending before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana, the Court issued a specific direction. The Court ordered the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the pending appeal and pass an order thereon within a period of three weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before the said authority. The date of appearance was fixed as 23.11.2020. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory remedy of appeal has been availed and is pending, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within a stipulated timeframe, provided there are no other overriding considerations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ess Ess Technofabs Private Limited, filed a Civil Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Union of India and another authority. The core of the matter involved a dispute related to Goods and Services Tax (GST). The petitioner had already availed of the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against an order or action, which was pending before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of this pending appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the expeditious disposal of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana, considering the petitioner has already availed of this remedy? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through its counsel, submitted arguments before the Court. While the specific arguments are not detailed, the act of filing the writ petition implies a grievance that necessitated judicial intervention, likely related to the delay or the need for a timely resolution of the appeal. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by their counsel, also made submissions. The judgment does not explicitly state the revenue's contentions, but their appearance and participation suggest they were aware of and responded to the petitioner's prayer for a directive on the appeal's disposal.