Raju Kumar Singh vs. Union Of INDIA, Through Chairman Central Board Of Indirect Taxes, Dept Of Revenue

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 by availing of the alternate remedy of appeal. The Court directed that the appeal should be preferred within four weeks from the date of the order, with compliance with prescribed statutory requirements. Crucially, the Court directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits without adverting to the issue of limitation, considering that the writ petition was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation for appeals. The Court also clarified that all contentions of all parties on the merits of the matter are left open for consideration by the appellate authority. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Raju Kumar Singh, proprietor of M/s Raju Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 24.02.2025. The respondents were the Union of India, the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST, Jharkhand, and the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Mohuda Range. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court directly through a writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 by availing of the alternate remedy of appeal, and if so, within what timeframe and with what directions to the appellate authority? Petitioner's Argument: The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the impugned order by availing of the alternate remedy of appeal, stating that such an appeal would be preferred within four weeks from the date of the order, complying with statutory requirements. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the withdrawal of the petition or the liberty sought by the petitioner. However, the respondents' counsel was present and heard.