M/S R T Builders And Developers vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax.
Original PDF →Facts
A partnership firm filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner subsequently sought to withdraw the petition.
Held
The High Court noted the petitioner's memo seeking to withdraw the petition, stating it had become infructuous due to a Division Bench order in another case and requesting liberty to raise the grounds in an appeal. The Court accepted the memo and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Key Issues
The key issue was the challenge to an Order-in-Original passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, which the petitioner later withdrew, rendering the petition infructuous.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking to withdraw the petition.
The memo is taken on record. It reads as follows:-
"I Rajeev Channappa Nulvi, advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the Writ Petition No.11947/2026 has rendered infructuous in the light of judgment of Division Bench order in W.A.No.1175/2026. Hence, the Writ Petition No.11947/2026 is withdrawn with liberty to urge the grounds of this writ petition in the appeal to be filed before the appropriate Authority." HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23759 WP No. 11947 of 2026
In light of the memo filed and submission made, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.