M/S. Debnath Hardware And Carrying Centre vs. The State Of Tripura And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Debnath Hardware and Carrying Centre, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2021 by Respondent No. 4 and an order dated 02.05.2023 by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner sought to quash the demand, release their attached bank account, and have their appeal heard afresh. The petitioner argued that they had already paid the due tax for June 2021. However, the petitioner later submitted that their appeal had been revived pursuant to a notification dated 04.11.2023, which provided a window for appeals rejected solely on the ground of being time-barred under Section 107 of the SGST Act. The petitioner complied with the conditions, and their appeal is now pending before the Appellate Authority.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that their appeal, which had been rejected on grounds of being time-barred, was revived pursuant to a notification dated 04.11.2023. This notification provided a window for such cases until 31.01.2024, and the petitioner had complied with its conditions. Since the appeal is now pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition, which sought similar reliefs, was rendered unnecessary. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original demand or the orders passed by the authorities. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as infructuous.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner's appeal has been revived and is pending before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the SGST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their appeal has been revived under the notification dated 04.11.2023, which allowed for the revival of time-barred appeals. As the appeal is now pending before the Appellate Authority, the present writ petition has become infructuous. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the revived appeal. However, the respondents are represented by the Additional Government Advocate.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order
10/07/2024
Heard Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Karnajit De, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents- State.
Writ petition was filed with the following prayers: “(i) Issue RULE NISI;
(ii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents or each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari cancelling/quashing/setting aside the illegally demand of the Respondent No.4 through order dated 31.12.2021 since the Petitioner has already paid the due tax for June, 2021 in GSTR 3 B;
(iii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents or each one of them to show cause as to why the impugned order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of State Tax dated 0
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 Tripura High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.