M/S Arora Metal And Alloys vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had informed them that the order dated 31.10.2023 had been duly complied with, and the goods and vehicle were released. Given this development, the counsel for the petitioner explicitly stated that they did not press the present writ petition. Therefore, the Court ordered accordingly, effectively disposing of the petition based on the petitioner's submission that the matter was resolved. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original challenge to the orders under Section 68, as the petition was not pressed. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition can be dismissed as not pressed when the petitioner indicates that the underlying grievance has been resolved through compliance and release of goods.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Arora Metal and Alloys, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.10.2023 passed under Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017, in Form GST-MOV-2, and a subsequent notice dated 28.10.2023 in Form GST MOV-01 under Section 68 read with Rules 138B and 138C of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The respondents are the State of Haryana and others. The petitioner informed the Court that the order dated 31.10.2023 had been complied with, and the goods and vehicle were released. Consequently, the counsel for the petitioner did not press the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the subsequent compliance and release of goods and vehicle. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner's counsel did not press the writ petition, implying that the issues raised in the petition were rendered infructuous or resolved due to subsequent actions. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or State. However, the fact that the petitioner did not press the petition suggests the respondents' position was either accepted or the matter was resolved.