M/S Lnv Technology Privatye LTD. Thro Its Authorized Signatory, Shri Ujwal Kumar Dutta vs. The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to resort to alternate statutory remedies, including seeking condonation of delay. The Court also directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of the order, and all requisite formalities are complied with, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal on its merits without considering the issue of limitation. This direction was based on the fact that the writ petition was instituted within the prescribed limitation period for an appeal, and the petitioner was bona fide pursuing the matter before the High Court. All contentions of all parties were left open.

Facts

M/s. LNV Technology Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The respondents were various authorities of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise. The petitioner, through its authorized signatory, sought to withdraw the petition. The petitioner stated that they intended to resort to alternate statutory remedies and requested condonation of delay in filing such remedies. The petitioner also mentioned that an appeal would be filed within two weeks from the date of the order, and the pre-deposit had already been made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue alternate statutory remedies, including seeking condonation of delay? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through its counsel, sought leave to withdraw the writ petition on instructions from its authorized signatory. They intended to pursue alternate statutory remedies and requested liberty to seek condonation of delay for such filings. The petitioner also stated that the appeal would be filed within two weeks and that the pre-deposit had already been made. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the respondents regarding the withdrawal of the petition or the condonation of delay. The respondents were represented by counsel, but their contentions on this specific point are not detailed in the order.