M/S Basant Stone Works (Gstin 20Aalfm5467Eize) Through Its Proprietor Dinu Babu vs. Union Of INDIA Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance

Held

The Court granted the petitioners' request to withdraw the writ petition. The liberty was granted to the petitioners to respond to the impugned notices and to raise all permissible defenses before the appropriate authorities. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions of the parties on merits were left open. This means the court did not decide any substantive issue related to the GST notices or the underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty. The ratio decidendi is that a petitioner can withdraw a writ petition with liberty to pursue remedies before the original authority, provided the merits are left open.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Basant Stone Works and its proprietor Dinanath Eahalani, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The respondents included various authorities from the Union of India and the State of Jharkhand, specifically the Principal Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Ranchi, and the Joint Commissioner of State Tax/Deputy Commissioner of State Tax/Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Government of Jharkhand, Pakur Circle. The writ petition challenged certain notices issued by these authorities. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to respond to the impugned notices and raise all permissible defenses? (Question of procedure and right to withdraw) The petitioners, through their counsel, sought leave to withdraw the writ petition. They requested liberty to respond to the impugned notices and to raise all permissible defenses before the concerned authorities. The revenue or state did not record any specific arguments against the withdrawal, but their presence as respondents implies they were prepared to defend the impugned notices. The core issue was whether the court should permit the withdrawal under the stated conditions, leaving the merits of the case undecided.