Kaushal Export vs. Chief Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Kaushal Export and Mohan Ram, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the detention, seizure, and issuance of a show cause notice by the respondents, the Chief Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of SGST. Notices were issued to the respondents on September 4, 2023. Subsequently, on October 16, 2023, the petitioner's counsel filed an application to withdraw his power of attorney, supported by an affidavit. On November 2, 2023, the Court accepted this withdrawal application. The respondent's counsel noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had deposited the tax, interest, and penalty, and the goods had been released. Despite the withdrawal of counsel and the release of goods, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The reasoning was based on the fact that the counsel representing the petitioner had withdrawn their power of attorney, and despite this, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was called. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had filed an application to withdraw their vakalatnama, which was accepted by the Court. Furthermore, the respondent's counsel informed the Court that the petitioner had already deposited the tax, interest, and penalty, and the goods had been released. This indicated that the immediate grievance leading to the writ petition might have been resolved, but the procedural aspect of prosecuting the petition remained unaddressed by the petitioner. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for non-prosecution, given that the petitioner's counsel has withdrawn their power and no new counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner, as no one appeared on their behalf. The initial petition was filed challenging the detention, seizure, and show cause notice issued by the SGST authorities. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's counsel pointed out that the petitioner had deposited the tax, interest, and penalty, and the goods were released during the pendency of the petition. The respondent's counsel implicitly argued for dismissal due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner's counsel had withdrawn their vakalatnama and no one appeared for the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 18/01/2024 This petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of detention, seizure and issuance of show cause notice by the respondents. On 04.09.2023 notices were ordered to be issued, whereafter, on 16.10.2023 an application was filed by counsel Mr. Bhuvnesh Gahlot along with his affidavit seeking to withdraw the power on behalf of the petitioner. On 02.11.2023 when the matter came up before the Court, the Court accepted the application filed by the counsel Mr. Gahlot
[2024:RJ-JD:2981-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12963/2023] and also noticed contention of the counsel who had earlier filed the petition that he has given no objection to Mr. Gahlot, based on which notice was issued to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents points out that during pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has deposited the amount of tax, interest and penalty and that the goods have been released to the petitioner. Despite the fact that the counsel representing the petitioner has withdrawn his power, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 55-RP/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.