M/S Sara Eminent Through Its Authorised vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise all issues before the Appellate Authority, except for the question concerning the vires of Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court directed that if an appeal is preferred and these issues are raised (excluding the vires question), the Appellate Authority should consider the arguments and decide the matter in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the legality and propriety of the impugned order or on the question of limitation. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sara Eminent, through its Authorized Signatory, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order or action by the revenue authorities. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed, other than the filing of the petition itself. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner can withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise all issues before the Appellate Authority, except the question of vires of Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise all issues before the Appellate Authority, excluding the challenge to the vires of Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 174
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA AND JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 1003 OF 2022
12th MAY, 2022
Between:
M/s Sara Eminent (through its Authorised Signatory)
…… Petitioner
And The Union of India & others
…… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned
counsel
Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following
JUDGMENT: (per the Acting Chief Justice Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra)
Heard Mr. Pullak Raj Mullick, the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 2)
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition, but with a liberty to raise all the issues raised in the writ petition before the Appellate Authority under the Statute, except the question of vires
2 of Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3)
In case, an appeal is preferred, and
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.