Mitsuba INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Mitsuba India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition, stating that its grievances had been partially addressed by an amendment to Rule 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules and the issuance of a Circular dated March 27, 2025. The petitioner intended to avail the benefit of an Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner requested liberty to pursue remedies for periods not covered by the Amnesty Scheme. The respondents, Union of India and others, did not object to the withdrawal.

Held

The Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the writ petition. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that partial redressal of grievances had been achieved through the amendment of Rule 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules and the issuance of a Circular dated March 27, 2025. The petitioner's intention to avail the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act was also acknowledged. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to avail remedies available in accordance with law for periods not covered under the Amnesty Scheme. No specific issues were decided on merits as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the writ petition in light of partial redressal of its grievances and its intention to avail the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to the amendment of Rule 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules and the issuance of a Circular dated March 27, 2025, its grievances have been partially addressed. It further contended that it intends to seek benefits under the Amnesty Scheme provided by Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and therefore seeks to withdraw the present petition. The petitioner also requested liberty to pursue remedies for periods not covered by the Amnesty Scheme. Revenue's Argument: The respondents did not raise any objection to the petitioner's request for withdrawal.