2018 Taxo.online 542

WP(C).No. 32945 of 2018 dated 14.12.2018





Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Justice

Partly in favour of assessee

High Court


Represented by: – 

Petitioner: – Sri.S.Anil Kumar & Sri.M.Rajagopal 

Respondent: – Sri.Suvin R.Menon & Smt. M.M. Jasmine 

Order: – 

The petitioner desires to practice as “GST Practitioner” in terms of Rule 83 of the CGST Rules. The first respondent issued the Ext.P2 notification, inviting applications for the examination to be held on 31.10.2018. But it contains a condition: those whose applications were approved by 24.09.2018 alone are qualified to apply. The petitioner assails, among other things, this condition. 

2. The petitioner asserted that he submitted the application as early as on 13.04.2018, but the authority concerned approved it only on 25.09.2018, beyond the cut off date. So he pleaded that unless he was permitted to take examination on 31.10.2018, he would suffer irreparable loss and hardship—affecting his career.

3. This Court, through an interim order dated 9th October 2018, permitted the petitioner to write the examination. He did write. And his result was put in the sealed cover.

4. Later, to rescue other applicants who registered themselves beyond the cut off date, the first respondent decided to conduct another examination on 17th December 2018. In other words, even if the petitioner had not filed this writ petition and had not got the interim direction to write the exam, he would have had the second opportunity: examination on 17th December 2018.

5. I reckon this second opportunity obviates any adjudication in this writ petition on merits. Initially, the petitioner apprehended that he would not get a chance to write the examination, because his application was processed beyond the cut off date. Now as a matter of policy, the first respondent has condoned the lapse and is allowing all other persons to write the examination. The petitioner has, however, already gone through that process and his results have been kept in the sealed cover. So I feel it serves the interest of justice if the authorities declare the petitioner’s result, in stead of giving him another opportunity of writing the examination. It achieves no apparent purpose.

Under these circumstances, I dispose the writ petition, holding that the respondents will declare the petitioner’s result, with all the consequences flowing therefrom. 

Free Trial

Are you looking for the Latest Rules, Notifications, and Case Laws?

Book your 7 days free trial

Book Now