Prestige Alcobev PVT LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. The Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Prestige Alcobev Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra. On August 5, 2024, the Court dictated an order granting the petitioner leave to withdraw the petition, with liberty to attend pre-consultation and respond to a notice dated December 11, 2023. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner would attend the date fixed by the authorities and explain why the benefit of the CGST Act should be granted. Subsequently, Mr. Mishra informed the Court that he had received an affidavit in reply, a show cause notice dated December 20, 2023, and an order in original dated March 11, 2024, in the same matter. The Court noted that these documents should have been disclosed in the petition, even though the order in original was passed after the petition was affirmed and lodged.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner was correct that the petition was lodged before the order in original was passed, the petitioner was duty-bound to bring the fact of the order's issuance to the Court's notice and should have filed an additional affidavit. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petition lacked an averment stating that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner. At this juncture, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition, stating an intention to file an appeal against the order in original dated March 11, 2024. The Court granted this request, dismissing the petition as withdrawn and granting the petitioner liberty to take further steps as advised in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was duty-bound to disclose the issuance of an order in original dated March 11, 2024, and the show cause notice dated December 20, 2023, in its writ petition, even though the petition was affirmed and lodged prior to the order in original being passed? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order in original was passed after the petition was affirmed and lodged, and therefore, there was no obligation to disclose it at the time of filing. However, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition to file an appeal against this order. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through Mr. Mishra, presented the show cause notice and the order in original, indicating that these proceedings were underway. The Court noted that the petitioner should have filed an additional affidavit to bring these facts to the Court's notice.