Allowed

Ms Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Nov 2024CWP/7182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an appellate authority's order dismissing a GST appeal for non-prosecution. The Court held that since the memorandum of appeal was on record, the authority was bound to examine the case on merits rather than dismissing it for default.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 02.01.2024 setting aside the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution set aside; directed appellate authority to decide the case on merits.

Ms Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-7182-2024 (O&M)

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

101

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CM-19200-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-7182-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.11.2024

¶6

M/S PARLE B ISCUITS PVT LTD, RUDRA P UR, UTTRAKHAND

¶7

. . . . Petitione r

¶8

Vs.

¶9

STATE OF H ARYANA AND OTHERS

¶10

. . . . Respondent s

¶11

****

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶13

¶14

Present: M r. Aman Mittal, Advocate for t he petitioner.

¶15

M s. Mamta Singla Talwar, DA G , Haryana.

¶16

¶17

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶18

Matter comes up on application No. CM -19200-CWP-2024 moved b y the pet i tioner seeking preponement of t he main case.

¶19

Learne d counsel for the petitioner sub m its that the only point involve d in the present petition is whether th e appeal filed by the petitione r could b e dismissed for non-prosecutio n .

¶20

Taking into consideration the short p oint involved, we prepone th e main w rit petition and hear it today it s elf. Application No. CM-19200 - CWP- 2 024 stands allowed.

¶21

We find that the petitioner had filed a n appeal on 18.05.2022 agains t

¶22

the or d er dated 29.06.2021 passed by Assistant Excise and Taxatio n

¶23

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.29 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-7182-2024 (O&M)

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Office r under Section 20 of the IGS T Act, 2017 read with sectio n 129(1) ( a) of the HGST Act, 2017 whereby the tax amount wa s calcula t ed at Rs.2,65,362/- and penalt y amount of the same figure wa s added f or a total demand of Rs.5,30,72 4 /-.

¶27

The appellate authority vide its order dated 02.01.2024 proceeded t o dismis s the case for non-prosecution r e lying upon the judgment passe d by the S upreme Court in Ram Naresh Y adav [AIR 1987 SC 1500].

¶28

We fi n d that the order passed by t h e appellate authority is not i n confor m ity with law. In case relatin g to administrative appeal, th e approa c h has to be adopted differently from that being adopted by th e regular courts. Since the memo o f appeal containing all th e submissions and ground were availabl e before the appellate authority , if it ha d reserved the case on 13.12.20 2 3, it should have examined th e appeal on merits and decided the same.

¶29

We als o find that on 13.12.2023, if the appellant was not present, ther e was n o occasion for the appellate aut h ority to reserve the case, and i t could h ave dismissed the case for non-prosecution on that very da y itself. H aving reserved the case, it was binding upon it to hav e exami n ed the case on merits.

¶30

Be tha t as it may, taking into consid e ration what we have observe d herein a bove, we set aside the order d ated 02.01.2024 and direct th e concer n ed appellate authority to de c ide the case on merits. Th e petitio n er, if he so chooses, may appe a r before the appellate authority .

¶31

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.29 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CWP-7182-2024 (O&M)

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

Other w ise, the appellate authority shal l be free to decide the appeal o n

¶35

merits.

¶36

Writ P e tition stands allowed as above.

¶37

10.All pe n ding applications also stand dis p osed of accordingly.

¶38

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶39

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶40

November 29, 2024

¶41

Mohit goyal

¶42

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶43

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.29 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ms Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beenu Khanna Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Anr.

M/S Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust Vs Union of India, Ministry of Finance

M/S Sbs Schooling Faridkot Vs State of Punjab and Others

Anand Nvh Products Vs the State of Haryana and Others

R.N. Prasher HUF Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Vishva Electrotech Limited Vs State of Punjab