Shr Rahimansab S/O Davalsab Doddamani vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Audit

Held

The Court held that the appellant had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Upon perusing the memo, which was placed on record, the Court decided to allow the withdrawal. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was straightforward: the appellant, being the party who initiated the appeal, had the right to withdraw it. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original writ petition or the Single Judge's order, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal. The Court also noted that pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of as they did not survive for consideration following the dismissal of the main appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

Facts

The appellant, Shri Rahimansab, a PWD contractor, filed a writ appeal before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, challenging an order dated 17.11.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of the same Court in Writ Petition No. 104529/2022. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), the State of Karnataka, the Government of India, the GST Council, and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax. The appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, seeking to set aside the Single Judge's order and allow the relief sought in the writ petition. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute were not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the writ appeal involved a writ petition before the Single Judge, the order of which is now under challenge.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was whether to allow the appellant's request to withdraw the writ appeal. The appellant, through their counsel, filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The respondents, represented by their respective counsels, were present. The Court had to decide whether to grant the withdrawal request and consequently dismiss the appeal. The appellant argued for withdrawal, presumably due to reasons not elaborated in the judgment. The respondents did not appear to contest the withdrawal. No specific legal provisions or precedents were discussed in relation to the withdrawal itself, as the matter was resolved by the appellant's decision to withdraw.