M/S Rudra Packers vs. The Chief Commissioner Of State Tax
Held
The Court held that the writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time. The petitioner sought a direction to file GST returns for July 2017, and the petition was filed in March 2018. By the time the matter was heard in 2021, the period for which the returns were to be filed had long passed, rendering the primary relief sought unattainable. The Court reasoned that the passage of over three years since the filing of the petition and the specific relief sought for a past period made the petition no longer capable of granting effective relief. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in detail, nor were any specific amounts in dispute mentioned.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Rudra Packers, filed a writ petition on March 26, 2018, seeking a direction to the respondent department to enable them to file their GST returns for July 2017. They also sought a direction to restrain the department from levying interest and fees for late furnishing of these returns. The High Court granted two weeks' time for the State Counsel to file a counter-affidavit, and no interim order was passed in favor of the petitioner. The matter came up for hearing in 2021.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition seeking to enable the petitioner to file GST returns for July 2017 has become infructuous due to the efflux of time, given that the petition was filed in March 2018 and the hearing occurred in 2021. Petitioner's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the petitioner, as there was no representation for them. The relief sought was to be enabled to file returns and to be exempted from interest and fees. Revenue's arguments: The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General and Additional CSC, appeared and argued the matter. Their implicit contention, as reflected in the court's reasoning, is that the delay in filing the petition and the passage of time have rendered the relief sought moot.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT
There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Addl. C.S.C. for the State through video conferencing.
Petitioner is a partnership firm having its place of business at Plot No.18/2, 19/2 Industrial Area, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent department to enable the Petitioner
2 Fir, to file their GST returns for the month of July. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent department
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.