Samarjit Jain vs. Sales Tax Officer, Bi (South Bengal) Head Quarter And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Samarjit Jain, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an action by the State Tax Officer. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner paid the penalty imposed by the proper officer under Section 129 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and obtained the release of the goods. Consequently, the petitioner's advocate submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous and sought leave to withdraw it. The Court was presented with a communication from the petitioner to his advocate regarding this matter.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the goods in question had already been released after the payment of the penalty imposed by the proper officer under Section 129 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since the primary grievance leading to the filing of the writ petition was addressed by the petitioner's actions during its pendency, the Court found no further purpose in continuing the proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if a petitioner voluntarily resolves the issue that formed the basis of a writ petition, the petition can be dismissed as withdrawn or infructuous. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to the petitioner paying the penalty and obtaining the release of goods under Section 129 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby rendering the challenge to the original action moot. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that since the goods have been released upon payment of the penalty imposed under Section 129, the writ petition is no longer maintainable and has become infructuous. They therefore prayed for leave to withdraw the petition. Revenue's contention: The State Tax Officer and other respondents did not present any arguments against the withdrawal of the petition.