Tvl.Intersnack Cashew INDIA Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)-3

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Intersnack Cashew India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-3, Tuticorin, dated 05.02.2026, bearing Reference No. ZD330226040935H, along with Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, and was arbitrary, perverse, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-3. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed, other than the impugned order being dated 05.02.2026.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a request to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with the liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. An endorsement to this effect was made by the petitioner's counsel. Recording this submission and endorsement, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. No costs were awarded. The Court did not make any findings on the alleged violations of natural justice or constitutional provisions, as the case was disposed of on the petitioner's request for withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, and is arbitrary, perverse, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? The Petitioner argued that the order suffered from these fundamental flaws. The Respondent, represented by the Government Standing Counsel, did not present any arguments as the matter was withdrawn by the petitioner. No specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules were explicitly named in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The core of the petitioner's contention was the alleged violation of natural justice and constitutional rights. The Respondent's stance was not recorded as they did not argue the case.