Sunil Jayantiprasad Garg vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Div Iii Navi Mumbai
Facts
The Petitioner, Sunil Jayantiprasad Garg, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The Respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Division III, Navi Mumbai, along with other authorities. The petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, during the proceedings, the Respondent's counsel stated that the petition had been worked out in view of an order dated 20th June 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Petitioner's counsel agreed that the petition could be disposed of in light of this development. The Court took the order dated 20th June 2024 on record.
Held
The Court noted the statement made by the Respondent's counsel that the writ petition had been worked out in view of the order dated 20th June 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Division III, Navi Mumbai. The Petitioner's counsel concurred with this submission, agreeing that the petition could be disposed of on this basis. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The specific content of the order dated 20th June 2024 and the exact nature of how the petition was 'worked out' are not detailed in the judgment. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition can be disposed of as having been worked out if both parties agree that the action taken by the respondent authority has resolved the petitioner's grievances.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous in light of the order dated 20th June 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Division III, Navi Mumbai? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner's counsel agreed that the petition could be disposed of, implying acceptance of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and that the issues raised in the petition were resolved or rendered moot by that order. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent's counsel stated that the petition had been worked out in view of the order dated 20th June 2024, indicating that the action taken by the authority had addressed the grievances of the petitioner, thereby making the writ petition unnecessary.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1/1 915-wp-8546-24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2024 Sunil Jayantiprasad Garg ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of CGST & Central Excise Div III Navi Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents ---- Mr. Ishan Patkar a/w Ms Aashka Shell for Petitioner. Mr. Karan Adik a/w Ms Sangeeta Yadav for Respondents ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 9th JULY 2024 P.C. : 1 Mr. Adik states that in view of the order dated 20th June 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Division III, Navi Mumbai, the petition itself has got worked out. Copy of the said order is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 2 Mr. Patkar states in view thereof, petition can be disposed. 3 Petition disposed. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2024.07.10 13:17:33 +0530
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 Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.