2018 (12) TMI 1084 - HC - GST

Appearance for the examination for GST Practitioner - declaration of result - Held that - Initially, the petitioner apprehended that he would not get a chance to write the examination, because his application was processed beyond the cut off date. Now as a matter of policy, the first respondent has condoned the lapse and is allowing all other persons to write the examination. The petitioner has, however, already gone through that process and his results have been kept in the sealed cover. It serves the interest of justice if the authorities declare the petitioner s result, in stead of giving him another opportunity of writing the examination - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to condition in notification for GST Practitioner examination application approval date.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought permission to practice as a GST Practitioner under Rule 83 of the CGST Rules. The first respondent issued a notification (Ext.P2) for an examination on 31.10.2018, stipulating that only applications approved by 24.09.2018 were eligible. The petitioner objected to this condition, claiming to have submitted the application on 13.04.2018 but approval was granted on 25.09.2018, post the cut-off date. The petitioner argued that being unable to take the exam on 31.10.2018 would harm his career irreparably.

The Court, via an interim order on 9th October 2018, allowed the petitioner to appear for the examination, which he did, and his result was sealed. Subsequently, the first respondent decided to conduct another exam on 17th December 2018 to accommodate applicants who applied post the cut-off date. This decision rendered the need for adjudication on the merits of the writ petition moot. The petitioner's concern about missing the exam due to late application approval was addressed by the second opportunity provided by the respondent. Given that the petitioner had already taken the exam and his result was sealed, granting him another chance to write the exam served no purpose.

In light of these developments, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to declare the petitioner's result, along with all consequential actions stemming from it. This decision was made to uphold the interest of justice, considering the circumstances and the actions taken by the authorities to rectify the situation for all applicants.