M/S Jai Maa Handloom And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition stood concluded by the order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25291 of 2019. The Supreme Court's common order was intended to dispose of all similar writ petitions pending before the High Court concerning seizures during the relevant period, to ensure consistency in the application of law and avoid multiple appeals. The Court acknowledged the petitioners' request to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal and noted the Revenue's no-objection to this, provided it was availed in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court found that the present proceedings were terminated by the Supreme Court's order and accordingly dismissed the petition, granting the petitioners liberty to institute and/or pursue the statutory remedy of appeal.

Facts

The petitioners, M/S Jai Maa Handloom and three others, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated October 5, 2018, passed under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act in Form GST MOV-09 by respondent no. 4. The State Authority's counsel submitted that a similar matter had reached the Supreme Court, which passed a common order disposing of all pending writ petitions before the High Court concerning seizures during the relevant period. The Supreme Court's order aimed to ensure consistency in the application of law and avoid multiple appeals. The petitioners' counsel then sought permission to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The Revenue's counsel had no objection if such a remedy was availed in accordance with law. The High Court noted that the proceedings were terminated by the Supreme Court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition stands concluded by the order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25291 of 2019, thereby rendering the writ petition infructuous? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioners sought permission to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the present petition, implying a desire to proceed with their case despite the Supreme Court's order, or at least to preserve their right to do so. Respondent's contention: The State Authority submitted that the Supreme Court's order in an identical matter had concluded the issue and disposed of all pending writ petitions before the High Court. The Revenue's counsel stated they would have no objection to the petitioners availing the statutory remedy if done in accordance with law.