Shri Dyamanna Singadeppa Mallapur vs. Commercial Tax Officer (Audit-1)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shri. Dyamanappa Singadeppa Mallapur, a works contractor, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petition was filed against the Commercial Tax Officer (Audit-1), the State of Karnataka, the Government of India, and the GST Council. The specific tax period and the order or action under challenge, as well as the amount in dispute, are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to this hearing is that the petitioner's counsel appeared and informed the Court that a memo had been filed seeking dismissal of the Writ Petition as withdrawn. The counsel confirmed this was a conscious decision by the advocate on record and the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that the Writ Petition should be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the oral submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and the memo filed by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner explicitly stated that a conscious decision was taken by the advocate on record and the petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition. The Court accepted this submission and the memo, and consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition. The ratio decidendi is that a party has the right to withdraw their case at any stage, and if they formally express this intention and it is confirmed by their counsel, the Court will typically grant the withdrawal. No specific issues regarding GST law were decided, as the petition was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, as per the memo filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that a conscious decision has been made to withdraw the Writ Petition and requested that the memo filed be placed on record and the petition be dismissed as withdrawn. They further stated that they would not seek to recall any order passed on this withdrawal. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the withdrawal of the petition. However, their presence as respondents implies their engagement with the proceedings.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Rakesh Bilki., counsel on behalf of Sri.Vidyashankar G.Dalwai., for the petitioner has appeared in person.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that a memo has been filed stating that the Writ Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and the Writ Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.
When queried, counsel for the petitioner submits that a conscious decision is taken by advocate on record and the petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition and if an order is passed, they shall not seek for recalling the same. NC: 2025:KHC-D:5339 WP No. 100072 of 2024
The oral submission made by counsel for the petitioner and the memo is placed on record.
The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18
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.