Mohammad Parwez Alam vs. The State Of Bihar

Original PDF →

CWJC/9809/2024HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01053629202420 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD,MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Parwez Alam, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order passed under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The order pertained to the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner's response to the show cause notice was filed after the order had already been passed. The State's counter affidavit stated that the petitioner submitted his response three years after the order was issued, a fact not controverted by the petitioner. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ application to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ application with liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's request and granted the permission. Crucially, the Court also directed that if any question of limitation arises for consideration regarding the statutory appeal, the period spent by the petitioner before the High Court, from the date of filing the writ application until its disposal, would be taken into account. This implies that the time spent litigating before the High Court might be condoned for the purpose of calculating the appeal period. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original GST issue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the writ application with liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, considering the delay in filing the response to the show cause notice and the subsequent passing of the order under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal. The State contended that the petitioner filed his response three years after the order was passed, implying a significant delay and potential issues with availing the statutory remedy. The State's counsel did not explicitly argue against the withdrawal but highlighted the delay in the petitioner's actions.

Sections Cited

Section 73(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9809 of 2024 ====================================================== Mohammad Parwez Alam S/o Late Md. Aoum Ashrafi, Resident of Village- Machhpur Lodipur, P.O.-Machhipur (Agarpur), Anchal-Goradih, P.S.- Goradih, Dist-Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner, State Tax Department (Commercial Department), Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Joint Commissioner, State Tax Department, Bhagalpur, Circle-1, Bhagalpur. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Bhagalpur. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Department, Bhagalpur. 5. The Additional Commissioner cum Appellate Authority, Bhagalpur Division Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shekhar Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 8 20-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to learned Advocate General for the State.

On perusal of the pleadings available on the record, this Court finds that against the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘CGST Act’) for the financial year 2019-20, the petitioner filed his response after the order had already been passed. The statements made in paragraph ‘19’ of the counter

Patna High Court CWJC No.9809 of 2024(8) dt.20-02-2025 2/2 affidavit have not been controverted by filing any rejoinder.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in fact three years after passing of the order, the petitioner submitted his response.

Be that as it may, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ application with liberty to avail his statutory remedy of appeal.

This writ application is, thus, permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

If any question of limitation would arise for consideration, the same would be considered keeping in view the period spent by the petitioner before this Court from the date of filing of the writ application till its disposal.

arvind/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ( Shailendra Singh, J) U

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