Hindustan Unilever LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.
Held
The Court allowed the withdrawal of the four writ petitions (W.P.[C] no. 1401/2023, W.P.[C] no. 1261/2021, W.P.[C] no. 1406/2023 & W.P.[C] no. 1408/2023) as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the petitioner's counsel that the company was pursuing alternative remedies and did not wish to pursue the writ petitions at that juncture. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the court again. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying GST issues.
Facts
The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Ltd., filed four writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court. These petitions were related to matters concerning GST. The petitioner, through its counsel, informed the Court that it was pursuing alternative remedies and therefore did not wish to proceed with the current writ petitions. The counsel requested permission to withdraw the petitions. The Standing Counsel for GST stated that they had no objection to this request.
Key Issues
The primary issue before the Court was whether the writ petitions filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd. should be allowed to be withdrawn as not pressed. The petitioner's counsel argued that the company was pursuing alternative remedies and therefore sought to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to approach the court again. The revenue's counsel did not object to this prayer. No specific legal provisions or precedents were discussed in relation to the merits of the case, as the decision was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010051372023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1401/2023 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNILEVER HOUSE, B D SAWANT MARG, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI-400099 AND ITS PERSONAL PRODUCTS FACTORY (UNIT I AND UNIT II) AT DOOMDOOMA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, DIST, ASSAM-786151 REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS FACTORY DIRECTOR- KUNWAR APOORVA SINGH, RESIDING AT C1-1002, LOTUS POND APARTMENT, 2A VAIBHAV KHAND, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD- 201014. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI. 3:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION TINSUKIA NOW KNOWN AS ASST. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST DIVISION TINSUKIA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST
Page No.# 2/5 Linked Case : WP(C)/1261/2021 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNILEVER HOUSE B D SAWANT MARG CHAKAL
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.