2021 (11) TMI 333 - HC - GST

Prayer for direction for expeditious consideration of representation made by the appellant before the expiry of time stipulated in Ext.P7 notification - HELD THAT - The learned Single Judge was pursuaded, in our view rightly not to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that the appellant had the remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the writ petition and the writ remedy is misconceived. Prima facie, we are of the view that both from the circumstances of the case and also the cogent reasons given by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal does not merit interference with the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge. This observation, ought not to be understood as shutting out the other options available to the appellant in this behalf. The appellant is given liberty to avail the options open under Ext.P7 notification. The Standing Counsel appearing for respondents Nos.2 to 6 is instructed to immediately intimate respondents Nos.2 to 6 about the liberty granted by this Court immediately - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Exts.P8 and P9, direction for expeditious consideration of representation, recall of cancellation of registration under CGST Act, appeal against cancellation order, discretionary jurisdiction of the court, options available to the appellant under Ext.P7 notification.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged Exts.P8 and P9 and sought a direction for the expeditious consideration of their representation. The appellant aimed to secure the recall of the cancellation of registration under the CGST Act and utilize the option provided by Ext.P7 notification. The court noted the submissions made by the appellant and considered the circumstances of the case.

The learned Single Judge declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, stating that the appellant had the remedy of appeal against the impugned order and that the writ remedy was misconceived. The court agreed with the Single Judge's decision, finding no merit in interfering with the jurisdiction exercised. However, the court clarified that this decision did not preclude the appellant from exploring other available options.

In light of the circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, the court granted the appellant certain liberties. Firstly, the appellant was given the liberty to avail the options provided under Ext.P7 notification. Additionally, the appellant was allowed to file an appeal, along with an application to condone the delay, against the cancellation of registration before the Appellate Authority. The court instructed the Standing Counsel to inform the relevant respondents about the liberty granted to the appellant. The writ appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.