State Of H.P. & Others vs M/S Amrit Traders
2024 Latest Caselaw 16422 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of H.P. & Others vs M/S Amrit Traders on 4 November, 2024

Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

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

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

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".

2. 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 appellant-

department. 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.

3. 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)
4th November, 2023                               Judge
       (kck)