Mohammad Obaidullah vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Stae Tax And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Mohammad Obaidullah, filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated February 27, 2023, passed by a learned Single Bench in W.P.A. 2427 of 2023. The Single Bench had declined to pass an interim order in the writ petition, stating that the matter required affidavits from the respondents. The appellant's counsel argued that the writ petition was scheduled for hearing in June 2023 and requested an earlier listing. The core issue to be decided in the writ petition concerns the appellant's locus standi to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority against a penalty order. If the appellant is found to have locus standi, the matter would need to be remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision. The appellate court directed the respondents to file their affidavit in opposition by March 31, 2023, and any reply by April 6, 2023, listing the writ petition for hearing on April 17, 2023.

Held

The appellate court found the observation of the learned Single Bench, that no interim order could be passed without affidavits from the respondents, to be perfectly justified. The Court agreed that the issue of the appellant's locus standi to prefer an appeal against the penalty order requires determination after considering the affidavits. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to file their affidavit in opposition by March 31, 2023, and any reply by April 6, 2023. The writ petition was then directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench on April 17, 2023. The principle derived is that interlocutory relief in a writ petition involving disputed facts requiring evidence (affidavits) should not be granted without affording the respondents an opportunity to present their case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority against the penalty order (Question of law). Arguments for the Appellant: The appellant contended that the learned Single Bench erred in not passing an interim order and that the writ petition, which concerns the appellant's locus standi to appeal a penalty order, should be heard earlier than its scheduled date in June 2023. The appellant argued that if locus standi is established, the matter should be remanded for a fresh decision by the appellate authority. Arguments for the State/Revenue: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the State/Revenue regarding the locus standi issue or the interim order. However, their appearance and the direction for filing affidavits indicate their involvement in defending the original order and opposing the interim relief sought by the appellant.