M/S Mahendra Traders Represented Through Its Sole Proprietor Anand Jhawar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Mahendra Traders, through its sole proprietor Anand Jhawar, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The petition sought a direction to the Appellate Authority, specifically the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), S.G.S.T., to decide a pending appeal. This appeal had been forwarded to respondent no. 2 (The Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jamshedpur Division (Admin.)) by respondent no. 3 (The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Office of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST and Central Excise, Ranchi). The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority.

Held

The Court held that the prayer made by the petitioner was innocuous and that no exception could be taken to it. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The Court issued a direction to the Appellate Authority, identified as the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), S.G.S.T., to decide the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible. The Court further specified a timeline for the decision, mandating that the appeal be decided in any event by 30.09.2025. The reasoning is based on the straightforward nature of the petitioner's request for the disposal of their appeal, which is a standard procedural expectation. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can direct statutory authorities to perform their duties, including deciding pending appeals within a reasonable timeframe. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Appellate Authority to decide a pending appeal, as per the prayer made by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that their prayer was innocuous and sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of their pending appeal by the Appellate Authority. The respondents, including the State of Jharkhand and various tax authorities, were represented. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr. SC-1, appeared for respondents 1, 2, and 4, and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate, appeared for respondent no. 3. Both waived notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents against the petitioner's prayer. The core issue revolves around the court's power to direct the disposal of a pending statutory appeal.