Vicky Katuria, Director, M/S Siddhi Vinayak Coal N Coke PVT. LTD, Thr Power Of Atorney Dinesh Nonia vs. Union Of INDIA, Service Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance

Held

The Court granted the petitioner leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority, deeming it the more efficacious remedy. The Court directed that if an appeal is instituted within six weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall consider it on its merits without being deterred by the issue of limitation. Regarding the waiver of pre-deposit, the Court stated it could not pass an order for waiver but granted liberty to the petitioner to point out to the appellate authority that Rs. 5 Crores had already been realized from them, suggesting it should be adjusted towards the pre-deposit. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority would dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties. All contentions on the merits of the matter were left open to be decided by the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Vicky Katuria, Director of M/s Sidhhi Vinayak Coal and Coke Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST & CX, Dhanbad Urban Circle. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition and requested directions regarding the limitation period for filing an appeal and waiver of pre-deposit. The petitioner had already deposited Rs. 5 Crores with the respondents and argued that this amount should be considered towards the pre-deposit requirement. The respondents were the Union of India and various CGST authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition with directions concerning the limitation period for filing an appeal before the appellate authority, given that the writ petition was filed within the extended period for appeals. 2. Whether the Court should waive the pre-deposit requirement for the petitioner to file an appeal, considering the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 5 Crores. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed within the extended period for instituting an appeal and sought directions to the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without being barred by limitation. The petitioner also contended that the pre-deposit requirement should be waived or that the already deposited Rs. 5 Crores should be adjusted towards it, as they have already paid a substantial amount. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue).