Prakash Chandra Pradhan vs. The Commnr., CT And GST, Odisha

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition. The Court decided to allow the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, provided the appeal is filed not later than January 2, 2023. Crucially, the appeal must be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, which should adequately explain the delay caused by the pendency of the present writ petition. The Appellate Authority would then consider this appeal and the delay condonation application on their merits. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the substantive issues of the case. The operative direction was to permit withdrawal and allow the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy under the specified conditions. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the Court disposed of the matter based on the petitioner's request.

Facts

The petitioner, Prakash Chandra Pradhan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The petition was against the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, and others. The specific order or action under challenge and the tax period(s) are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition to approach the Appellate Authority. The Court granted this liberty, stipulating that if an appeal is filed by January 2, 2023, with a condonation of delay application explaining the delay due to the present writ petition's pendency, it would be considered on its merits. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the matter. Annexure-3 series was to be returned upon substitution with attested photocopies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition to pursue the appellate remedy, and if so, under what conditions? The petitioner argued for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. The petitioner contended that the pendency of the writ petition caused a delay in filing the appeal and sought condonation of this delay. The revenue or State's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The core of the petitioner's request was to be allowed to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal, which had been delayed due to the present proceedings.