Manoj Kapoor & Anr. vs. The Commissioner Of CGST & Anr.

Facts

The petitioners, Manoj Kapoor & Anr., approached the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition (W.P.(C) 38/2025) challenging summons issued to them. The respondents were the Commissioner of CGST & Anr. The matter came before a Division Bench of the High Court. During the proceedings, the counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the summons which had necessitated the filing of the writ petition had been withdrawn by the revenue authorities.

Held

The Court held that in view of the statement made by the learned counsel representing the respondents that the summons which had constrained the petitioner to approach the Court have since been withdrawn, the writ petition has become infructuous. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. The reasoning is straightforward: the action that prompted the legal challenge has been nullified, rendering the judicial intervention unnecessary. The ratio decidendi is that if the grievance leading to a writ petition is resolved by the respondent's action during the pendency of the petition, the petition becomes infructuous and should be disposed of accordingly. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the disposal of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is rendered infructuous in light of the withdrawal of the summons by the respondents? The petitioner's primary concern was the issuance of the summons, which they sought to challenge. The respondent's counsel stated that the summons have been withdrawn. The Court's decision hinges on whether this withdrawal resolves the grievance that led to the petition. The petitioner's argument would implicitly be that the petition was necessitated by the summons, and their withdrawal resolves the issue. The respondent's argument is that the withdrawal renders the petition infructuous.