Eversub INDIA PVT. LTD. (Formerly Known As Subway Systems INDIA Private LTD.) vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Eversub India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking directions against respondent No. 2, the Haryana Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, to decide two appeals against Advance Ruling Orders dated 08.12.2021 and 10.01.2022. The appeals were filed manually on 12.01.2022 and 03.03.2022, respectively, and were pending adjudication beyond the statutory limit of 90 days. Respondent No. 3, the Union of India, presented memos indicating that hearings were fixed for 15.09.2023, but the petitioner allegedly did not appear. The petitioner's counsel denied receiving the communication regarding the hearing.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the appeals had been pending beyond the statutory period. While the respondent indicated that hearings were scheduled, the petitioner denied receiving notice. Leaving aside the dispute regarding the petitioner's appearance, the Court directed respondent No. 2 (Haryana Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling) to make efforts to decide the appeals within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. The Court also stipulated that the petitioner must be given at least 10 days' advance notice of any hearing that is fixed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the advance rulings themselves or the reasons for the delay beyond the statutory period, focusing instead on ensuring the appeals are decided promptly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Haryana Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling has failed to decide the appeals within the statutory period of 90 days, as mandated by the relevant provisions of the GST law, thereby violating the petitioner's right to timely adjudication? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeals against the Advance Ruling Orders dated 08.12.2021 and 10.01.2022, filed on 12.01.2022 and 03.03.2022 respectively, have been pending for an unreasonable period, exceeding the statutory limit of 90 days, and sought directions for their expeditious disposal. Respondent's Contention: Counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted memos indicating that hearings were scheduled for 15.09.2023, but the petitioner failed to appear. The petitioner's counsel denied receiving the communication regarding the hearing.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC.:136665-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(114)
CWP-23895-2023 Decided on : 19.10.2023 Eversub India Pvt. Ltd. ……Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and others
……Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. Abhishek A Rastogi, Advocate,
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate and
Mr. Pratyashprava Saha, Advocate for the petitioner (s).
Mr. Sharan Sethi, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Prashant Rana, Advocate for
Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Senior Standing Counsel
for respondent No.3. ***** G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions against respondent No.2 for deciding appeals against Advance Ruling Order No.ARL/02/2021-22 dated 08.12.2021, filed manually on 12.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) and against Advance Ruling Order No.ARL/07/2021-22 dated 10.01.2022, filed manually on 03.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) in a time bound manner, as the same have been
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.