Dhl Express (INDIA) PVT LTD vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeals) And Others

Facts

The petitioner, DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging certain orders. Prior to filing the petition, the petitioner had submitted an application dated January 23, 2025, under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, seeking rectification of the very orders being assailed. The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the present petition to pursue this rectification application with the respondent-authorities. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, acknowledged the pending application and assured that it would be considered and appropriate orders passed in accordance with law.

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The decision was based on the joint submissions of learned counsel for both parties. The petitioner had indicated their intention to pursue an application for rectification of the impugned orders under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which had been filed prior to the present petition. The respondent-authorities assured that such an application would be considered and dealt with in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition in light of this understanding, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the rectification application and other remedies as admissible in law. No specific issue regarding the validity of the original orders or the merits of the rectification application was decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition to pursue an application for rectification of orders under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had filed an application for rectification of the impugned orders under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, prior to the institution of the writ petition. They sought permission to withdraw the current petition to allow them to pursue this rectification application with the respondent-authorities. They also requested liberty to avail other remedies if a fresh cause of action arose or if they were aggrieved by subsequent orders. Revenue's contention: The respondent-authorities, through the Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, fairly submitted that if an application under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, was pending, it would be taken cognizance of, and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law at the earliest.