M/S Tent Factory vs. Commissioner SGST
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Tent Factory, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging an interim order of attachment and refund of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Respondent, the State, through its counsel, informed the Court that a final order had been passed on January 28, 2025, under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 142(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. A copy of this final order was submitted to the Court. The State argued that the passing of the final order rendered the present writ petition, which was filed against an interim measure, infructuous.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the submission by the learned counsel for the State that a final order had been passed on January 28, 2025, under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 142(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court accepted this submission, noting that the petition was filed only against an interim order of attachment and refund. Since a final adjudication had occurred, the interim challenge was rendered moot. The ratio decidendi is that a challenge to an interim order becomes infructuous if a final order on the subject matter is subsequently passed. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition challenging an interim order of attachment and refund has become infructuous in light of a subsequent final order passed under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 142(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? The Petitioner's argument is not recorded as none appeared for the Petitioner. The Respondent's argument is that the writ petition, filed against an interim order, has become infructuous because a final order has since been passed by the authority. The Respondent relies on the fact that the final order was passed in terms of Section 74(9) of the CGST Act and Rule 142(5) of the CGST Rules, and a copy of this order was presented to the Court.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9), Rule 142(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
2025:CGHC:6750
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 158 of 2024 1 - M/s Tent Factory Through Authorized Signatory Taranjeet Singh Hora S/o Raghubeer Singh Hora, Aged About 48 Years, R/o G.E. Road, Near Telibandha, Railway Crossing, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Commissioner SGST, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board SHYNA AJAY SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.02.10 14:22:10 +0530
2 06/02/2025
At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that the final order has been passed on 28.1.2025 in terms of Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 142(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and a copy of the order has also been filed along with a covering memo dated 1.2.2005. She further submits that only against the interim
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.