Millie Hazarika vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned standing counsel for the GST that the competent authority had already passed an order in connection with the writ petition. Following this, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they had instructions not to press the writ petition. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition stands closed on being not pressed. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original grievance, as the petitioner chose not to pursue the case. The operative direction was to close the writ petition. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Millie Hazarika, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging an order or action by the GST authorities. The respondents were the Union of India, the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, and the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Guwahati. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the writ petition was filed, and subsequently, the competent authority passed an order related to the subject matter of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the subsequent order passed by the competent authority. The petitioner's counsel, Dr. A Saraf (represented by Mr. Z. Islam), submitted that they had instructions not to press the writ petition. This implies that the petitioner conceded that the subsequent order might have rendered the petition infructuous or that they were satisfied with the outcome of the order. The revenue, represented by Mr. S.C. Keyal, standing counsel for GST, submitted that the competent authority had already passed an order in connection with the writ petition. No specific arguments were recorded from the revenue's side regarding the merits of the original challenge, only the fact of the subsequent order.