Mr. Ahmed Mohammed vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I)

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Ahmed Mohammed, proprietor of M/s RR Metal Industries, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I) in deciding his appeal filed on May 29, 2024, concerning the revival of his GST registration. The GST registration had been cancelled by an order dated May 8, 2024. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal and revive his registration, arguing that the inaction was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights. He also sought an interim order to stay the operation of the cancellation order. The respondents were the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I), the Superintendent of Central Tax, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, and the Union of India.

Held

The Court noted that the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, representing the respondents, submitted that the appellate authority had passed a final order on August 9, 2024. A copy of this order was provided to the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh writ petition assailing the appellate order. The petitioner was also granted liberty to challenge other orders that might arise. No costs were awarded. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I) in deciding the appeal filed on May 29, 2024, for the revival of the petitioner's GST registration is void, arbitrary, illegal, without authority of law, and a non-exercise of jurisdiction, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the prolonged inaction by the appellate authority in deciding his appeal for the revival of his GST registration was illegal and arbitrary. He contended that this inaction amounted to a restraint on his trade, violating his fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He sought immediate intervention from the High Court to direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal and revive his registration. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that a final order had been passed by the appellate authority on August 9, 2024. No further arguments were recorded for the respondents.