State of Hp and Others Vs M/s Amrit Traders — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

State of Hp and Others Vs M/s Amrit Traders — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether, without adjudicating the questions raised, the instant appeal stands rendered infructuous by the efflux of time, in view of the reliefs already granted by the learned Single Judge and the subsequent developments (shifting of premises by the writ petitioner and rejection of his fresh licence application).

Court's answer

The appeal has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time, the learned Single Judge having already granted the reliefs to the respondent; accordingly, the Court declined to go into the questions raised in the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

It is not in dispute that, after the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition, the writ petitioner has in fact shifted his premises and had sought a licence, which was rejected by the appellant department; this undisputed change of circumstances underlies the finding of infructuousness.

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 16.4.2024 contains no mention of the premises in which the business of the writ petitioner was being run, as described in and constituting the subject matter of the writ petition.ratio¶14
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Division Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice & Satyen Vaidya, Judge) — LPA No. 124 of 2024, State of H.P. & others v. M/s Amrit Traders, decided 04.11.2024 (Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:10551 )). Letters Patent Appeal by the State against the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 7.5.2024, whereby the writ petition of M/s Amrit Traders was allowed, the order dated 16.04.2024 of the Financial Commissioner (Excise), Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-10) was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to accept the petitioner's prayer for grant of renewal of licence L-10BB, the premises having been upgraded to principal place of business per the amended GST Registration Certificate, needful to be done preferably within ten days. Without going into the questions raised in the appeal, the Division Bench held the appeal rendered infructuous by the efflux of time: pursuant to the writ Court's orders the writ petitioner had shifted premises and applied afresh for a licence, which the appellants' department rejected; further, the impugned order dated 16.4.2024 nowhere mentioned the premises described in the writ petition. Appeal dismissed as infructuous; pending applications disposed of.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:10551 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No. 124 of 2024 Date of decision: 04.11.2024. State of H.P. & others ...Appellants. Versus M/s Amrit Traders ...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the appellants : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (oral):

Without going into the questions, as raised in the instant appeal, we are of the considered view that the appeal has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time, reason being the learned Single Judge had granted the following reliefs to the respondent herein vide judgment dated 7.5.20224:-

“25. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and as such, same is allowed and impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed by Financial Commissioner (Excise), Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-10) is quashed and set aside with the direction to respondents to accept the prayer made by

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

-2-

the petitioner for grant of renewal of license L-10BB on account of the fact that premises, wherein business was being run in previous years in terms of form L-10BB stands upgraded to principal place of business, as is evident from the amended GST Registration Certificate issued by the authority concerned. Needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably within ten days, so that no undue financial loss is caused to petitioner as well as State Exchequer. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of, so also, pending applications, if any”.

It is not in dispute that after the orders passed by this Court, the writ petitioner has in fact shifted his premises and had sought a licence, which was rejected by the appellantdepartment. Essentially, in the impugned order dated 16.4.2024, there is no mention as to in which premises, the business is being run by the writ petitioner, that was described and was the subject matter of the writ petition.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice

(Satyen Vaidya) 4^th November, 2023 Judge (kck)