Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ms Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 November, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:158627-DB
CWP-7182-2024
2024 (O&M)
Page 1 of 3
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM-19200-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-7182-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.11.2024
.2024
M/S PARLE BISCUITS PVT LTD,
LTD RUDRAPUR
RUDRAPUR, UTTRAKHAND
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondentss
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr Aman Mittal,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.
Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. Matter comes up on application No.CM CM-19200-CWP-2024 moved by the petitioner seeking preponement of the main case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only point involved in the present petition is whether the appeal filed by the petitioner could be dismissed for non-prosecution.
non prosecution.
3. Taking into consideration the short point involved, we prepone the main writ petition and hear it today itself. Application No.CM-19200-- CWP-2024 2024 stands allowed.
4. We find that the petitioner had filed an appeal on 18.05.2022 against the order dated 29.06.2021 passed by Assistant Excise and Taxation 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-12-2024 10:41:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:158627-DB CWP-7182-2024 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 Officer under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with section 129(1)(a) of the HGST Act, 2017 2017 whereby the tax amount was calculated at Rs.2,65,362/-
Rs.2,65,362/ and penalty amount of the same figure was added for a total demand of Rs.5,30,724/ Rs.5,30,724/-.
5. The appellate authority vide its order dated 02.01.2024 proceeded to dismiss the case for non-prosecution non prosecution relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Yadav [AIR 1987 SC 1500].
6. We find that the order passed by the appellate authority is not in conformity with law. In case relating to administrative appeal, the approach has to be adopted differently differently from that being adopted by the regular courts. Since the memo of appeal containing all the submissions and ground were available before the appellate authority, if it had reserved the case on 13.12.2023, it should have examined the appeal on merits and decided the same.
7. We also find that on 13.12.2023, if the appellant was not present, there was no occasion for the appellate authority to reserve the case, and it could have dismissed the case for non non-prosecution prosecution on that very day itself. Having reserved the case, it was binding upon it to have examined the case on merits.
8. Be that as it may, taking into consideration what we have observe observed d hereinabove, we set aside the order dated 02.01.2024 and direct the concerned appellate authority to decide the case on merits. The petitioner, if he so chooses, may appear before the appellate authority.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-12-2024 10:41:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:158627-DB CWP-7182-2024 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 Otherwise, the appellate authority shall be free to decide the appeal on merits.
9. Writ Petition stands allowed as above.
10. All pending applications also stand disposed of ac accordingly.
(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 29,, 2024 Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-12-2024 10:41:17 :::