Shiv Enterprises vs. Commissioner CGST Commissioner Rohtak And Others
Held
The Court noted that the counsel for the petitioner-firm stated that the period of attachment had already expired and, therefore, the petitioner had instructions not to pursue the present writ petition. Based on this submission, the Court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed. No specific findings on the merits of the case or the legality of the attachment were made, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.
Facts
The petitioner, Shiv Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action by the Commissioner, CGST, O/o CGST Commissionerate Rohtak and others. The petition was filed concerning a period not specified in the judgment. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the period of attachment, which was the subject of the dispute, had already expired. Consequently, the petitioner had instructions not to pursue the writ petition further.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in light of the expiry of the period of attachment. (Question of law) The petitioner argued that since the period of attachment had worked out, they no longer wished to pursue the writ petition. The respondents' arguments were not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.851 of 2021 Date of Decision : 14.07.2022 Shiv Enterprises ….Petitioner Versus Commissioner, CGST, O/o CGST Commissionerate Rohtak and others …..Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for respondent No.4-SBI. Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL) Counsel representing the petitioner-firm informs the Court that the period of attachment has already worked out and as such he has instructions not to pursue the present writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as not pressed. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE July 14, 2022
(PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.07.15 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.