Netaji Oil Depot vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Netaji Oil Depot, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 5.12.2020 passed under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act by respondent no. 2, and a notice dated 5.12.2020 issued by respondent no. 3. The petitioner sought to quash these impugned orders and prevent any coercive steps against them. The respondent was the State of U.P. and two others. The tax period and amount in dispute were not specified in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition was not detailed.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The petitioner's counsel expressed an intention to withdraw the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the validity of the impugned order or notice, nor were any directions issued regarding coercive steps. The ratio decidendi is that a party has the right to withdraw their petition, and the court will allow it if there is no objection from the respondent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 5.12.2020 passed under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act and the notice dated 5.12.2020 issued by respondent no. 3 are liable to be quashed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's counsel stated an intention to withdraw the petition. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent had no objection to the withdrawal.