Jct Limited vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, JCT Limited, is the owner of goods that were detained under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, a final order of confiscation was passed in Form GST MOV-11. The petitioner deposited the tax and penalty and secured the release of the goods. However, the petitioner has grievances regarding the proceedings leading to the confiscation. An appeal against the final confiscation order was filed under Section 107 of the Act, bearing Appeal No. 110 of 2019-20. Despite the passage of over three years, the appeal remained pending for hearing. This writ application was filed seeking a direction for the expeditious hearing and decision of the pending appeal.

Held

The Court held that the writ application should be disposed of with a specific direction to the Respondent No. 2. The respondent is directed to take up the appeal filed by the writ applicant for hearing within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. Furthermore, the respondent is to dispose of the appeal within 15 days from the date of its hearing, in accordance with the law. The reasoning is based on the petitioner's grievance that their appeal, filed against a confiscation order, has been pending for an inordinate period of over three years. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to have their appeal heard and decided expeditiously. The operative direction is to ensure the timely adjudication of the pending appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent No. 2 ought to be directed to expeditiously hear and decide the Appeal No. 110 of 2019-20 filed by the petitioner, as per the powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the appeal, filed against a confiscation order under Section 130 of the Act, has been pending for over three years without being taken up for hearing. This delay is causing prejudice to the petitioner, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure the appeal is heard and decided promptly. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to expedite the process. The revenue, represented by the State Tax Officer, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the delay in hearing the appeal. The judgment indicates that the learned AGP appeared for the respondents.