Sailesh Ramanlal Sheth vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Commissioner Of Sales Tax And Ors

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition to be withdrawn. The reasoning was straightforward: the GST Department had withdrawn the recovery proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the grievance that led to the filing of the writ petition was no longer extant. The Court found no impediment to permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition. The ratio decidendi is that if the action under challenge is withdrawn by the authority, the affected party can withdraw their petition without prejudice. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as withdrawn, with no costs awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Sailesh Ramanlal Sheth, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The petition was against the State of Maharashtra and its GST authorities. The core of the matter involved recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the GST Department of the Government of Maharashtra withdrew the recovery action against the petitioner. A communication dated 27 February 2024, addressed to the Officer in-charge of National Securities Depository Ltd., confirmed this withdrawal. Following this development, the petitioner expressed an intention to withdraw the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be allowed to be withdrawn in light of the GST Department's withdrawal of recovery proceedings against the petitioner? The petitioner argued that since the recovery action, which formed the basis of the petition, has been withdrawn by the respondent authorities, the petition has become infructuous and should be permitted to be withdrawn. The respondent State did not record any specific arguments against the withdrawal, implicitly accepting the petitioner's submission that the matter no longer required adjudication on merits.