2018 (3) TMI 538 - HC - GST

Rebate - recovery of amount - recovery of amount in view of enactment of transitional provisions under the CGST - Held that - It was not an order passed merely because the Court was upset with the Respondents or because of the absence of the advocates, but it is clear from the order that it was to impress upon the Authorities that the proceedings before this Court should not be delayed - On account of the fair stand of the Petitioner and Mr. Sridharan, we direct that the amount paid of ₹ 25,000/be returned to the Respondents - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Amendment of prayer clauses in the Writ Petition
2. Academic nature of the issue due to subsequent developments under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act
3. Recall of earlier order imposing costs on the Respondents
4. Return of the amount paid as costs to the Respondents
5. Disposal of the Writ Petition and the Civil Application

Amendment of prayer clauses in the Writ Petition:
The petitioner sought to delete prayer clauses (b) and (c) of the Writ Petition, stating they were inserted due to oversight. The court granted leave for the deletion and directed the amendment to be carried out by a specified date. The learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner confirmed that the issue raised in the petition became academic based on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents.

Academic nature of the issue due to subsequent developments under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act:
The court, after considering the affidavit-in-reply and the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, concluded that the issue raised in the Writ Petition had become purely academic and infructuous. The subsequent developments under the Act rendered the matter moot, as clarified in the affidavit-in-reply submitted by the respondents.

Recall of earlier order imposing costs on the Respondents:
The court recalled its earlier order imposing costs on the Respondents, which had been paid as directed. The order imposing costs was not a result of displeasure with the respondents or their advocates but was intended to ensure that proceedings before the court were not unduly delayed. The court emphasized that the imposition of costs was to remind the Authorities of their duties and obligations to the public interest.

Return of the amount paid as costs to the Respondents:
In light of the fair stand taken by the petitioner and their counsel, the court directed the return of the amount paid as costs (?25,000) to the respondents. The decision to return the amount was based on the acknowledgment of the fair conduct of the petitioner and their counsel during the proceedings.

Disposal of the Writ Petition and the Civil Application:
The court disposed of the Writ Petition with no costs, considering the academic nature of the issue and subsequent developments under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Consequently, the Civil Application was also disposed of since nothing remained pending after the disposal of the Writ Petition.