G.V. Granites vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals)

Held

The Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. The petitioner expressed a desire to work out their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the respective GST enactments and made an endorsement to that effect. Recording this submission and endorsement, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the appellate order or the GST provisions. The ratio decidendi is that a petitioner can withdraw a writ petition to pursue an alternative statutory remedy. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, G.V. Granites, represented by its partner Mr. P. Velusamy, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition sought to quash an order passed by the First Respondent, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), in Appeal A.No.52/2022-GST-TRY dated 22.12.2023. The Second Respondent was the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to call for the records and quash the appellate order. The procedural history leading to the appellate order is not detailed in the provided text.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the order passed by the First Respondent in Appeal A.No.52/2022-GST-TRY dated 22.12.2023 quashed. The petitioner argued that they wished to withdraw the Writ Petition to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the respective GST enactments. The revenue or State did not present any arguments as the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. The court was not required to decide on the merits of the case or the validity of the appellate order.