M/S Kama Steel Tube Industries vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate Dehradun
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an unspecified order or action related to GST. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an application seeking to withdraw the petition. The petitioner's counsel stated that the intention was to avail the alternative remedy provided under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act. The respondents were represented by their respective counsel.
Held
The Court allowed the petitioner's application for withdrawal of the writ petition. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they intended to avail the alternative remedy provided under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy. The Court further directed that if the petitioner avails this liberty, the concerned authority should decide the matter in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute or tax period was mentioned in the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition to pursue the alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they intended to avail the alternative remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act and therefore sought to withdraw the present writ petition. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue or state respondents regarding the withdrawal application. However, their presence and representation indicate their participation in the proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No.
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
IA No. 5 of 2025 In WPMS No. 2857 of 2022
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Shubham Bhardwaj,learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 4. Withdrawal application has been filed by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is intended to avail alternative remedy, as provided under Section 107 of CGST/SGST Act.
In view of the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If such a liberty is availed by the petitioner, the concerned authority may decide the same as per law.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.03.2025 Parul
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.