THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.6773 of 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for the respondents.

2. This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9021 of 2022, which was withdrawn by it on 24.12.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2024 it was mentioned that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally, it is required to be seen that the petitioner filed a letter dated 21.12.2024 to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Anil Garg, (2017) 14 SCC 634, this writ petition is, indeed, maintainable, despite the fact that the earlier writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order-in-original dated 31.01.2022 was promptly challenged by the petitioner in the previous round of litigation i.e., W.P.No.9021 of 2022, which remained pending with an interim protection till 24.12.2024 when it was permitted to be withdrawn. The petitioner diligently assailed the order-in-original before this Court and after withdrawal, filed an appeal which came to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay. In the peculiar facts of this case and by considering the fact that the time consumed before this Court is condonable/ignorable, the appellate authority may be directed to hear the matter on merits.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents raised formal objection.

6. We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In the peculiar facts of this case, admittedly, the petitioner challenged the order-in-original within the period of statutory limitation in W.P.No.9021 of 2022, which remained pending till its withdrawal.

8. Thus, in the fitness of things, we deem it proper to direct the appellate authority to ignore that period when the petitioner’s earlier writ petition remained pending before this Court.

9. Resultantly, the impugned appellate order dated 31.01.2025 is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the appellate authority on 16.04.2025 at 11:30 am and no further notice for this purpose shall be issued to the petitioner. The appellate authority shall proceed in accordance with law from that stage.

10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without expressing any view on merits. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ RENUKA YARA, J

02.04.2025 vs/sa