Kesara Syntex PVT. LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST

Facts

The petitioner, Kesara Syntex Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court allowed the application for withdrawal with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. The Court also directed that the period from the filing of the writ petition until the date of the order would not be counted for the purpose of limitation in filing the appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. Regarding the limitation period for filing the appeal, the Court explicitly held that the time period from the filing of the writ petition until the date of the order shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation. This means the petitioner will get the benefit of exclusion of time spent in the High Court for filing their appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a litigant should not be prejudiced by the time spent pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum, especially when they seek to withdraw and pursue the correct appellate remedy. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn and to exclude the period of pendency for limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority, considering the stage of the proceedings. 2. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through its counsel, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The implicit argument is that pursuing the matter before the Appellate Authority would be a more appropriate remedy. The petitioner also sought a direction for the exclusion of the period of pendency of the writ petition for the purpose of limitation for filing the appeal. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Central GST).