M/S B N Dutta Represented Thro One Of Its Partner Sri Ashwini Kumar Dutta vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue

Held

The Court held that the present writ application should be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. (T) No. 1143 of 2021 and its analogous cases, which was decided on 11.07.2024. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that a similar matter had already been adjudicated by the High Court, and the respondents' acceptance of this submission. The Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent in the analogous cases. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the earlier order. No specific issues were independently decided in this instance, as the matter was resolved based on a prior judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. B. N. Dutta, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The respondents were the Union of India, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX., Division-V, Jamshedpur, and the Superintendent (ADJN.), CGST & CX., Division-V, Jamshedpur. The petitioner's counsel stated that a similar matter had already been decided by the same High Court in W.P. (T) No. 1143 of 2021 and analogous cases, specifically the case of M/s B D Enterprises. The respondents' counsel accepted this submission. Consequently, the present writ application was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforementioned case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (T) No. 1143 of 2021 and its analogous cases, specifically M/s B D Enterprises Vs. Union of India and others, disposed of on 11.07.2024. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, submitted that a similar matter has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (T) No. 1143 of 2021 and its analogous cases, and therefore, the present petition should be disposed of in line with that decision. The petitioner relied on the precedent set by the earlier judgment. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their learned Sr. Standing Counsel, CGST, accepted the submission made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the existence of a similar decided case and did not contest the petitioner's plea for disposal in terms of the earlier order.