Rishi Productions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Lgsto-140

Facts

The petitioner, Rishi Productions, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court on March 11, 2024. The petition challenged an Order of Adjudication (Form DRC-07) bearing No. ACCT/LGSTO-140/DRC-07/2023-24 T.No 2220, dated January 24, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-140. This order demanded GST (ITC) and other levies. Subsequently, on April 30, 2024, the respondent communicated via email that the impugned Order of Adjudication and the consequent recovery action stood withdrawn. This withdrawal was based on the fact that the petitioner had already been proceeded against by the Central Tax Authority via an order dated May 17, 2023. The petitioner then filed a memo stating the petition had become infructuous and sought its withdrawal.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This finding was based on the petitioner's submission, supported by the respondent's communication, that the Order of Adjudication dated January 24, 2024, and the consequent recovery action had been withdrawn. The reason for withdrawal was that the petitioner had already been subjected to proceedings by the Central Tax Authority. The Court accepted the petitioner's prayer to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as having become infructuous. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Order of Adjudication dated January 24, 2024, has become infructuous in light of the subsequent withdrawal of the said order by the respondent authority. (Question of fact) Contentions: Petitioner: Submitted that the writ petition filed on March 11, 2024, challenging the Order of Adjudication dated January 24, 2024, has become infructuous. This is because the respondent, vide an email dated April 30, 2024, communicated the withdrawal of the impugned order and the consequent recovery action. The withdrawal was due to the petitioner having already been proceeded against by the Central Tax Authority. Therefore, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. Respondent: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent. However, the respondent's communication of withdrawal of the order is noted.