Quest Infotech Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/4392/2025HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01019175202505 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE ,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL2 pages
For Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Mr. Suresh Chaudhary, Mr. Gagan Kumar Singhal, Ms. Ila Nath, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Arjun Malik, Senior Standing Counsel (CBIC) for R-2 and R-3 2
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

Two writ petitions, W.P.(C) 4392/2025 and W.P.(C) 5245/2025, were filed before the Delhi High Court. The petitioners in these matters were Quest Infotech Private Limited & Anr. and MS Mittal Wire Company & Anr., respectively. The respondents were the Union of India and other relevant authorities. The petitions challenged certain orders or actions by the revenue authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute were not detailed in the provided order. The procedural history leading to the filing of these writ petitions was not elaborated.

Held

The Court allowed the petitioners' motion for withdrawal of the writ petitions. The Court held that the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to the appellate remedy available under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the matter. In the event that the issue of limitation arises when the petitioners file their statutory appeal, the time spent by the petitioners in pursuing the present writ petitions is to be taken into account for reckoning the limitation period. Pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was whether the petitioners should be allowed to withdraw their writ petitions with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioners sought to withdraw their petitions, indicating a desire to avail the appellate mechanism provided by the CGST Act. The revenue authorities were represented, but their specific arguments or contentions regarding the withdrawal or the merits of the case were not recorded. The Court was not asked to decide on the substantive merits of the GST disputes themselves.

Sections Cited

Central Goods and Services Tax Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 4392/2025
W.P.(C) 5245/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4392/2025 & CM APPL. 20281/2025 QUEST INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Mr. Suresh Chaudhary, Mr. Gagan Kumar Singhal, Ms. Ila Nath, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arjun Malik, Senior Standing Counsel (CBIC) for R-2 and R-3 2 + W.P.(C) 5245/2025 & CM APPL. 23850/2025 MS MITTAL WIRE COMPANY & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Mr. Suresh Chaudhary, Mr. Gagan Kumar Singhal, Ms. Ila Nath, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jatin Gaur, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R %

05.01.

2026

1.

The counsel for petitioners, on instructions, has made a motion for withdrawal of the present writ petitions with liberty to take recourse to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/01/2026 at 12:12:33

appellate remedy under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act (‘CGST Act’).

2.

The writ petitions, as such, stand disposed of as withdrawn. The petitioners are at liberty to prefer statutory appeal as provided under the CGST Act.

3.

In case if the issue of limitation crops up, time spent by the petitioners in pursuing the present writ petitions be taken into account and accordingly, the limitation be reckoned.

4.

Needless to clarify that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter.

5.

Pending applications also stands disposed of. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J JANUARY 5, 2026/pr/st This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/01/2026 at 12:12:33

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.