2022 (8) TMI 632 - HC - GST

Writ petition restored to original file after lower court order set aside, interim protection continued

Calcutta HC set aside a lower court order and restored a writ petition to its original file for hearing on merits. The case involved identical facts to a ... Seeking direction to authority concerned to consider and dispose of the representation given by the appellant - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Identical order was put to challenge in KAVITA JAISWAL VERSUS DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, KOLKATA NORTH COMMISSIONERATE & ORS. [2022 (8) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] where it was held that Since the appellant had benefit of order of status quo in pending writ petition the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive action against the appellant till the writ petition is heard and disposed of. Interim order, already granted, shall remain in force for a period of eights weeks or till the writ petition is heard, whichever is earlier. The facts of the case on hand are identical to that of the aforementioned decision except of the slight change of dates - In the instant case, the writ petition was filed during March, 2021 and on 29th April, 2022 the learned writ Court permitted the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent be kept on record and directed that the respondent shall not take any coercive action against the appellant for recovery of the demand in question. This interim order had continued till the writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order. The order dated 29th June, 2022 is set aside and the writ petition is restored to its original file and number and be heard and decided by the learned Single Bench on merits and in accordance with law - Since the appellant had the benefit of order of status quo pending writ petition, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive action against the appellant till the writ petition is taken up for hearing by the learned Single Bench. Issues:1. Appeal against order directing consideration of representation by appellant.2. Allegation of technical glitches preventing benefit under SVLDR Scheme.3. Direction for affidavit-in-opposition and subsequent hearings.4. Granting of interim protection and status quo.5. Restoration of writ petition for decision on merits.6. Direction against coercive action by respondent authorities.7. Liberty to seek early listing of writ petition.8. Disposal of connected application with no costs.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged an order directing consideration of the appellant's representation within a specified time frame. The Court noted that a similar order in another case was disposed of after affidavit-in-opposition was filed, suggesting the need to decide the matter on its merits rather than directing disposal of the representation.2. The appellant alleged technical glitches prevented availing benefits under the SVLDR Scheme. The Court directed filing of an affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent to explain the delay in considering the representations made by the appellant regarding the technical issues faced.3. The Court ordered the respondent to file the affidavit-in-opposition by a specified date and granted permission for the appellant to file a supplementary affidavit. Subsequent hearings were scheduled, with interim protection granted until a specified date or until further order, to maintain status quo.4. Interim protection against coercive action by respondent authorities was granted until the writ petition was heard and disposed of. The Court directed that the interim order should remain in force for a specified period or until the writ petition was heard, whichever was earlier.5. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous order, and restored the writ petition for hearing and decision on its merits by the Single Bench in accordance with the law. The direction was based on the need to decide the matter on its substantive merits.6. Respondent authorities were directed not to take any coercive action against the appellant until the writ petition was heard and disposed of by the Single Bench. The direction aimed to protect the appellant from any adverse actions during the pendency of the writ petition.7. The appellant was given liberty to seek early listing of the writ petition before the appropriate Single Bench, allowing for expedited consideration of the case. This provision enabled the appellant to request a prompt hearing of the matter.8. The connected application was disposed of with no costs imposed on any party involved in the proceedings. The judgment concluded with the issuance of an urgent certified copy of the order to the parties upon completion of all legal formalities.