Gunjan Roy vs. Deputy Director, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Gunjan Roy, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an action or order by the Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, and other CGST authorities. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is also not detailed. However, on April 30, 2025, the petitioner's counsel informed the Court that they had instructions to withdraw the writ petition, citing a communication dated April 21, 2025. The respondents, representing the CGST authorities and the State, did not oppose this request.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the petitioner's explicit instruction, communicated to the Court on April 30, 2025, to withdraw the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel presented a communication dated April 21, 2025, as the basis for this instruction. The reasoning for this holding is straightforward: when a petitioner, duly represented, seeks to withdraw their case and the respondents do not object, the Court typically grants such a request. The ratio decidendi is that a party has the right to withdraw their legal proceedings, provided it does not prejudice the opposing party and is done with proper procedure. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved by the withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, filed by Gunjan Roy against the Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors., should be dismissed as withdrawn, in light of the petitioner's instruction to do so. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through their learned advocate, submitted a communication dated April 21, 2025, instructing the withdrawal of the writ petition. They relied on this communication to request the dismissal of the case. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned advocates representing the CGST authorities and the State did not oppose the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by either party in relation to the withdrawal itself.