M/S Upscale Homes PVT LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 4.1

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Upscale Homes Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging a show cause notice and a Form GST-DRC-01A issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 4.1. The show cause notice was issued under Section 73/74 read with Sections 75, 122, and 50 of the KGST Act. The notice was dated May 18, 2024, and the Form GST-DRC-01A was dated May 9, 2024. The petitioner sought to set aside these notices through a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the respondent had accepted most of their submissions and sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedies for any unaddressed grievances.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a memo seeking to withdraw the writ petition, stating that the respondent had concluded proceedings by accepting most of the petitioner's submissions. The petitioner requested leave to withdraw with liberty to seek alternative remedies against any proceedings that remained against them. In light of this submission and the memo filed, the Court dismissed the writ petition. However, the Court explicitly reserved the petitioner's liberty to seek remedies concerning any unaddressed grievances. The specific findings on the merits of the show cause notice or the GST-DRC-01A were not made as the petition was withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition can be dismissed as withdrawn when parties reach a settlement or when the petitioner seeks to pursue alternative remedies after partial resolution of issues, with liberty granted for remaining grievances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show cause notice and Form GST-DRC-01A issued by the respondent under Section 73/74 read with Sections 75, 122, and 50 of the KGST Act are liable to be set aside. The petitioner contended that the respondent had concluded proceedings by accepting most of their submissions, implying that the impugned notices were no longer tenable or that the issues raised therein had been resolved. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedies for any remaining grievances. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, did not appear to have made any specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the impugned notices, other than their issuance.