Kunal Kanti Chandra vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appellate tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with the law. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's explicit request to withdraw the petition to avail the statutory remedy before the appellate tribunal and the absence of any objection from the respondents. The principle here is that High Courts, in writ proceedings, can permit withdrawal of petitions to enable parties to pursue alternative statutory remedies, especially when no objection is raised by the opposing party, and such withdrawal is in furtherance of the legislative scheme for dispute resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, Kunal Kanti Chandra, filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Promit Majumdar, informed the Court that he had instructions to withdraw the writ petition. The reason for withdrawal was to allow the petitioner to pursue the remedy available before the appellate tribunal under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The respondents, represented by Mr. Shiv Sankar Banerjee, did not raise any objection to the withdrawal. The Court was informed of this development on July 30, 2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition to avail the remedy before the appellate tribunal under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner, through their counsel, sought to withdraw the writ petition to pursue the statutory remedy available before the appellate tribunal. This implies an argument that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should permit such withdrawal to facilitate the petitioner's access to the designated appellate forum. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents, represented by Mr. Banerjee, did not raise any objection to the petitioner's request for withdrawal. This indicates that the revenue authorities did not oppose the petitioner's decision to pursue the appellate tribunal.