Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file an appeal against the Annexure-P/4 order, with just exceptions on limitation; the pre-consultation grievance left open to be agitated before the appellate authority.

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure to consider the Annexure-P/3 email for adjournment filed by the Advocate vitiated the hearing / impugned order. +2 more

Court's answer

When a matter is posted for hearing, an Advocate who has inconvenience must appear before the authority or send a representative to express inability; an email for adjournment issued on the date of hearing itself, and only at 1:33 PM in the afternoon, did not oblige the authority to adjourn the matter.

Ratio / Principle

The grievance regarding (non-)consultation is a matter which can be agitated before the appellate authority, i.e., it does not justify writ interference at this stage.

Key takeaways

Since Annexure-P/4 is an appellable order, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal, with just exceptions on limitation.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 against an appellable adjudication order (Annexure-P/4 dated 13.02.2024) of Central GST & Central Excise authorities — dismissed, alternative remedy of appeal preserved. Held (oral judgment per the Chief Justice): (i) an email for adjournment sent by the Advocate on the very date of hearing (16.01.2024) and only at 1:33 PM did not oblige the authority to adjourn; the Advocate ought to have appeared or deputed a representative to express inability; (ii) the objection of non-pre-consultation, though the total liability exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, is a matter to be agitated before the appellate authority; (iii) since the impugned order is appellable, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. Petition dismissed with liberty to file an appeal, with just exceptions on limitation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5371 of 2024

======================================================

Manoj Kumar Singh having its office at Madhkaul, Jafarpur, Belsaund, Sitamarhi, Bihar, 843316 through its Proprietor, Manoj Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years (M), Son of Madan Singh, Residing at S/o Madan Singh, Resident of Lichi Gachi Prabhat Nagar, Nazirpur Ahiyapur, Shekhpura, Seikhpur, Muzaffarpur, Musahri, Bihar-842002.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

The Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Patna-II, Patna.

The Additional Commissioner, Central GST and CX, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

The Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Patna-II, Patna.

The Deputy/Asstt. Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise Division, Darbhanga, Bihar.

The Deputy/Asstt. Commissioner (ARC), Central GST and Central Excise, Patna-II, Patna.

The Superintendent, Central GST and Central Excise, Patna-II, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate Mr.Amarjeet, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G. Mr.Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 13-05-2024

The petitioner is aggrieved with the Annexure-P/4 order

passed on 13.02.2024.

The first contention raised is that Annexure-P/3 email

for adjournment filed by the Advocate was not considered. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.5371 of 2024 dt.13-05-2024 2/2

second contention is that no pre-consultation was carried out. The total liability mulcted on the petitioner was above Rs. 50 lakhs.

Insofar as the contention regarding consideration of the email, when a matter is posted for hearing, if the Advocate had any inconvenience, he or his representative should have gone before the authority and expressed his inability. The email itself is dated 16.01.2024, the date of hearing and it is issued only at 1:33PM. We do not think that merely on the basis of an email issued, the authority could have adjourned the matter that too sent in the afternoon. As far as the consultation is concerned, it is a matter, which can be agitated before the appellate authority.

Considering the fact that Annexure-P/4 is an appellable order, we do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal, with just exceptions on limitation.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

(Harish Kumar, J)

Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	15.05.2024
Transmission Date