Zipasia vs. Superintendent, Range-V, Central GST And Central Excise, Barrackpore Division Anr Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Zipasia, filed a writ application before the High Court. The petitioner's advocate submitted that there were formal defects in the writ application and sought liberty to withdraw it with the right to file a fresh petition. The respondents, represented by their advocate, did not object to this request. The writ application was filed against the Superintendent, Range-V, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Barrackpore Division, and others. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the filing of the writ application is also not detailed.
Held
The Court held that the writ application should be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the petitioner's submission regarding formal defects and the request for liberty to file a fresh petition. The Court also granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh writ application on the self-same cause of action. The reasoning for granting this liberty stems from the lack of objection from the respondents and the Court's consideration of the submissions made by both parties and the materials on record. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ application as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the present writ application due to formal defects, with permission to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action? The petitioner argued that there were formal defects in the writ application and requested permission to withdraw it and file a fresh one. The respondents did not raise any objection to the petitioner's request.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
26th June, 2024 (AK) 106
W.P.A 11347 of 2024
ZIPASIA Vs. Superintendent, Range-V, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Barrackpore Division and others
Mr. Promit Majumdar Ms. Uzma Ali …for the petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Maiti Mr. Tapan Bhanja …for the respondent nos.2 and 3. 1. The learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioner submits that there are formal defects in the present writ application. As such, liberty be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the same with liberty to file afresh.
The learned Advocate representing the respondents does not object to the same.
Having regard to the aforesaid and considering the submissions made by the parties and materials on record, let the aforesaid writ application be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh on the self-same cause of action.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.