Ankush Enterprises vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction. The Court ordered the competent authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the appellate authority on 13.7.2021 and on other dates as required. The Court did not delve into the merits of the cancellation order or the appeal itself, focusing instead on ensuring the appellate process was expedited. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the State's counsel and the need for timely resolution of the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can direct statutory authorities to decide appeals within a stipulated period when there is an undue delay and a concession from the respondent.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankush Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged two orders: one dated 7.2.2021 and another dated 10.3.2021. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the inaction of the appellate authority in deciding an appeal against an order that had cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The respondents were the State of Haryana and others. The specific tax period and the authority that passed the impugned orders were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, nor was the amount in dispute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority has failed to discharge its statutory duty by not deciding the appeal against the cancellation of GST registration within a reasonable time, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the GST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's failure to decide the appeal against the cancellation of its GST registration amounted to a dereliction of duty. This inaction caused prejudice to the petitioner, as its business operations were likely hampered. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to compel the appellate authority to act. Revenue/State's contention: The State of Haryana, through its counsel, fairly conceded that the appeal should be decided in a time-bound manner. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by either party in the provided text.