M/S Shri Tirupati Enterprises vs. The Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shri Tirupati Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The respondents were the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Alwar, the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Gurugram Zonal Unit, and the Deputy Commissioner, GST Range-XIII Bhiwadi. The petitioner sought relief against an order or action passed by these GST authorities. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent developments had occurred, rendering the cause of action for pursuing the petition non-existent.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that subsequent developments during the pendency of the writ petition meant that no cause of action survived for its pursuit. The Court accepted this submission and, consequently, dismissed the writ petition. The reasoning is straightforward: when a case is rendered infructuous, meaning it no longer presents a live controversy, the court has no purpose in adjudicating it. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition that has lost its cause of action due to subsequent events should be dismissed as infructuous. No operative directions were issued, and no issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
The primary issue before the Court was whether the writ petition filed by M/s Shri Tirupati Enterprises had become infructuous due to subsequent developments. The petitioner contended that due to these developments, there was no longer a live dispute or cause of action to be adjudicated by the Court. The respondents' position on this matter is not recorded in the judgment. The question of law revolves around the principle of mootness and whether a court should proceed to decide a case when the underlying dispute has ceased to exist. This issue turns on the procedural aspect of writ jurisdiction and the court's discretion to dismiss cases that are no longer justiciable.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[2024:RJ-JP:27435-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9238/2022 M/s Shri Tirupati Enterprises, Through Its Authorized Signatory And Partners Of The Petitioner Firm, Mr. Ravish Gupta S/o Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Aged 28 Years, R/o B-12, B Block Near Gujranwala Town, Mahendru Enclave, North West Delhi, Delhi- 110009. ----Petitioner Versus
The Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Alwar, Goods And Services Tax (Gst) Commissionerate, Alwar, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar - 301001. 2. Additional Director General, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence (Dggi), Gurugram Zonal Unit, First Floor, Plot No. 44, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana- 122001. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Gst Range-Xiii Bhiwadi, A- Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar- 301001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Muskan Mathur for Ms. Archana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 02/07/2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent developments during pendency of the writ petition, no cause of action survives for pursuing the petition. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/ Tanisha/62
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.