Sh. Harish Singh Rawat vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petition along with the pending application is dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a review petition before the Tribunal, as prayed for by the petitioner's counsel. The reasoning for this decision is based on the petitioner's submission that the Tribunal was not correctly apprised of the status of the representations, leading to an erroneous dismissal of the Original Application. The Court accepted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition to pursue a review before the Tribunal. No specific findings were made on the merits of the GST dispute itself, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds of withdrawal.

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Harish Singh Rawat, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Tribunal. This order dismissed the petitioner's Original Application as withdrawn. The Tribunal's order was based on the understanding that the petitioner's representations dated 19.12.2018 and 09.08.2018 had been forwarded to The Additional Commissioner (CCU), GST Delhi Zone, for consideration. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that it was erroneously not brought to the Tribunal's notice that these representations had already been rejected. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a review petition before the Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's Original Application before the Tribunal was correctly dismissed as withdrawn, given that the representations forwarded for consideration had already been rejected? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural correctness of the Tribunal's order under the relevant rules of procedure for the Tribunal). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the Original Application as withdrawn because it was not informed that the representations had already been rejected. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a review petition before the Tribunal. Revenue/State: No arguments were recorded for the respondents in the judgment.