State Of Hp And Others vs. M/S Amrit Traders

Held

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time. The Court noted that the learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment dated May 7, 2022, had allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated April 16, 2024, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Excise), and directed the respondents to accept the prayer for renewal of license L-10BB. The reasoning was based on the premises being upgraded to the principal place of business, as evident from the amended GST Registration Certificate. The Court further observed that after the Single Judge's order, the writ petitioner had indeed shifted premises and sought a license, which was subsequently rejected by the appellant-department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be dismissed as infructuous if subsequent events render the relief sought in the appeal moot, particularly when the original order under challenge has been superseded or rendered irrelevant by the passage of time and subsequent actions of the parties.

Facts

This is an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh and others against an order of a learned Single Judge dated May 7, 2022, which allowed a writ petition filed by M/s Amrit Traders. The Single Judge had quashed an order dated April 16, 2024, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Excise), Himachal Pradesh, and directed the respondents to accept the petitioner's prayer for renewal of license L-10BB. The renewal was permitted because the premises where the business was previously conducted had been upgraded to the principal place of business, as evidenced by an amended GST Registration Certificate. The State's appeal contends that the Single Judge's order has become infructuous due to the efflux of time and subsequent events. It is noted that after the Single Judge's order, the writ petitioner did shift premises and sought a license, which was rejected by the appellant-department.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh is rendered infructuous due to the efflux of time and subsequent events, thereby warranting dismissal. Arguments for the Appellants (State of H.P. & others): The appellants argued that the appeal has become infructuous. They highlighted that the writ petitioner had shifted premises and sought a new license, which was rejected by the department. They also pointed out that the impugned order dated April 16, 2024, did not specify the premises where the business was being run, which was the subject matter of the original writ petition. Arguments for the Respondent (M/s Amrit Traders): The respondent did not present any arguments in the appeal before the High Court, as the Court proceeded to decide the matter based on the appellants' submissions and the record of the Single Judge's order.