M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And Others
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that if the petitioner approaches the Appellate Tribunal against the order assailed in the petition within six weeks from the date of the order, the appeal shall be decided by the Appellate Authority by construing it as having been filed within the period of limitation. The interim protection granted to the petitioner by the High Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 was extended for a period of six weeks from the date of the order. However, if the petitioner fails to approach the Appellate Authority within this six-week period, the Court's order shall lose its efficacy. The Court did not decide on the merits of the impugned orders.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Rama Krishna Industries, filed a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3, and another order dated 21.09.2021. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and a stay on the impugned order dated 10.01.2023. The petitioner's counsel submitted that with the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner was permitted to approach the Appellate Tribunal within a reasonable time, with continued protection from the Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to approach the Appellate Tribunal against the impugned orders, and if so, within what timeframe? 2. Whether the interim protection granted to the petitioner by the High Court should continue until the petitioner approaches the Appellate Tribunal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal has now been constituted, the petition should be disposed of by allowing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal within a reasonable time, and that the interim protection granted by the Court should continue until then. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the petitioner's request to approach the Appellate Tribunal or the continuation of interim protection.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 9625 of 2023 Date of Decision: 30.10.2026 _______________________________________________________________________ M/s Rama Krishna Industries
……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
…....Respondents Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? _______________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocates General. ____________________________________________________________________
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: “A. Writ in the nature of Certiorari/ Mandamus for quashing of the Impugned Order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 being illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of H.P. GST Act, 2017 and/or; B. Writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus directing stay on the Impugned Order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Responden
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 Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.