Dev Electronics Chandigarh vs. State Of Union Territory Chandigarh And Others
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition had become infructuous. This decision was based on the consensus reached by the counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner's GST registration had been restored, rendering the challenge to its cancellation moot. Therefore, no substantive legal questions regarding the cancellation order or the procedural issues with the GST portal were decided on merits. The Court's operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as having become infructuous.
Facts
The petitioner, Dev Electronics, a proprietorship concern, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh, vide an order dated February 26, 2019. The petitioner had filed an application for revocation of this cancellation under Rule 23 of the GST Rules, but the GST portal was reportedly not accepting it. During a previous hearing, the counsel for the respondent (UT, Chandigarh) offered that if the petitioner presented itself before the Assessing Authority with necessary particulars, corrective measures would be taken. The petitioner was granted liberty to act on this offer. At the subsequent hearing, counsel for both parties agreed that the writ petition had become infructuous.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous given the subsequent restoration of the petitioner's GST registration? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel, along with the respondent's counsel, agreed that the writ petition had become infructuous. Respondent's Argument: The respondent's counsel had previously offered a procedural remedy to the petitioner regarding the acceptance of their revocation application, indicating a willingness to resolve the issue administratively. The respondent's counsel agreed with the petitioner that the matter was now infructuous.
Sections Cited
Rule 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-24144-2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24144-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.10.2019 Dev Electronics Ground ... Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA Present : Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate, for Ms. Anjali Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Jagga, Senior Panel Counsel for UT, Chandigarh Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, for respondents No.2 to 4 **** JASWANT SINGH, J. (Oral) Petitioner-the proprietorship concern is assailing the action of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, UT, Chandigarhdddddd whereby his registration under GST scheme was cancelled vide impugned order dated 26.2.2019 (Annexure P-8). On the previous date of hearing on 3.10.2019, the following order was passed : - “Proxy counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment by moving written request for adjournment. Mr. Ajay Jagga, Senior Panel Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh PARITOSH KUMAR 2019.10.23 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-24144-2019 2 present in Court points out that as regards the grievance of
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.