M/S Pratik Steel Casting Private Limited Represented Through Its Director Mr Narendra Gopal Singhal vs. The Joint Director Directorate General Of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence
Held
The Court held that no interference or modification of the order dated July 9, 2024, was required. The Court reasoned that when a writ petition is withdrawn with the knowledge that the intention is to avail an alternative remedy, there is no necessity to explicitly record this liberty in the order. The Court found it difficult to understand why modification was sought when the counsel was fully aware of the purpose of withdrawing the writ petition. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Pratik Steel Casting Private Limited, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P. No. 695 of 2024) seeking modification of an order dated July 9, 2024, passed in W.P. (T) No. 4948 of 2023. The original writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by the Division Bench on the request of the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner's counsel submitted that liberty to avail alternative remedy was inadvertently not sought for in the withdrawal order. The respondents are various authorities from the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence and the Central Goods and Services Tax department.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated July 9, 2024, passed in W.P. (T) No. 4948 of 2023, which permitted the withdrawal of the writ petition, requires modification to explicitly grant liberty to avail alternative remedy, as argued by the petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that liberty to avail alternative remedy was inadvertently omitted from the withdrawal order and that the order should be modified to reflect this. The petitioner's counsel stated that they were aware of withdrawing the writ petition to pursue an alternative remedy. Respondents' Contention: The respondents did not file any specific arguments recorded in the judgment. However, the Court's observation implies that no interference is required as the counsel was aware of the purpose of withdrawal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 695 of 2024
M/s. Pratik Steel Casting Private Limited
... Petitioner
Versus 1.The Joint Director, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum 2.The Deputy Director, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum 3.The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum 4.The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax, Ranchi. 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Hazaribagh Division, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise Division, Hazaribagh ... Respondents
--------- CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate.
: Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate.
: Mr. Aditya Mohan Khandelwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Parth S.A. Pati, Sr. Standing counsel, CGST
: Mr. Anurag Vijay, Jr. Standing counsel, CGST
: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate.
: Mr. M.
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.