2021 (12) TMI 949 - HC - GST

Seeking directions to the respondents restraining them from taking action pursuant to the impugned Circular dated 6 th October, 2021 without following the due process of law - HELD THAT - Mr.Singla, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, states that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. Since this Court has already issued notice in the main writ petition as well in stay application, this Court is of the view that the present application serves no purpose. The present application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay on demand raised by respondents
2. Restraining respondents from acting on Circular dated 6th October, 2021
3. Territorial jurisdiction of the Court

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed an application seeking a stay on the demand raised by the respondents through a letter dated 27th October, 2021. The petitioners requested directions to prevent the respondents from taking action without following due process. The petitioners were compelled to deposit a significant amount under coercion, and they feared the impugned Circular would render their petition meaningless if implemented before the next hearing.

2. The Court issued notice to the respondents, and both parties accepted the notice. The respondents' counsel argued that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Despite this, the Court found that since notice had already been issued in the main writ petition and the stay application, the present application had no purpose. The Court disagreed with the petitioners' counsel, stating that the petition would not become infructuous due to the principle of lis pendens, ensuring that any duty paid by the petitioners would be subject to the Court's future orders.

3. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the present application, emphasizing that the principle of lis pendens would govern the duty paid by the petitioners until further orders were issued. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that the pending writ petition would not lose its relevance even without an interim order, as the principle of lis pendens would ensure the petition's efficacy. The dismissal of the application was grounded in the Court's assessment of territorial jurisdiction and the application of legal principles to the ongoing litigation.