M/S Ahad Media Solutions vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Goods and Service Tax, Allahabad, to decide the appeal of the petitioner, M/s Ahad Media Solutions, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner. The operative direction was for the appellate authority to decide the appeal preferably within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the High Court's order. The issue of the merits of the original order or the appeal was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ahad Media Solutions, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent authority, the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Goods and Service Tax, Allahabad, to decide their appeal. The appeal was filed on August 26, 2021, against an impugned order dated January 7, 2020. The petitioner sought expeditious disposal of their appeal. The Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, stated that the appeal would be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law within a time-bound period. The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, disposed of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent no. 2/Commissioner (Appeal) should be directed to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner, M/s Ahad Media Solutions, against the impugned order dated January 7, 2020, expeditiously? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal, filed on August 26, 2021, against an order dated January 7, 2020, had not been decided, and they sought a direction for its expeditious disposal. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were mentioned in the judgment regarding the petitioner's argument for expeditious disposal, other than the general prayer for mandamus. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, Union of India and others, through the Standing Counsel, stated on instructions that the appeal of the petitioner would be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law within a time-bound period. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were detailed in the judgment for the respondent.