M/S New Ganpati Packwell INDIA vs. Office Of The Superintendent CGST Range Ii CGST Division Ludhiana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s New Ganpati Packwell (India), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondent was the Office of the Superintendent, CGST Range-II, CGST Division, Ludhiana-South. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The reason for withdrawal was to file an application for revocation of cancellation of registration. This application would be filed under Section 30 read with Rule 23 of the CGST Act, 2017. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute, if any, are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is also not detailed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition was granted. The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition with the liberty to file an application for revocation of cancellation of registration. This application is to be filed under Section 30 read with Rule 23 of the CGST Act, 2017. The reasoning behind this decision is solely based on the petitioner's submission and request for withdrawal to pursue an alternative remedy. The Court did not delve into the merits of the cancellation of registration or the validity of the intended application. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the Court acceded to the petitioner's request.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an application for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 read with Rule 23 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that they wished to withdraw the present writ petition. Their intention was to file an application for revocation of cancellation of their GST registration. This application would be made under the provisions of Section 30 read with Rule 23 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel specifically requested permission for this withdrawal with liberty to pursue the aforementioned remedy. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. No specific legal provisions beyond Section 30 and Rule 23, nor any circulars or precedents, were mentioned in the arguments presented.