Tarun Gulati vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they wished to withdraw the instant writ petitions to file comprehensive writ petitions. The reason stated for this course of action was to bring to the fore the alleged infraction of law by the respondents through the repeated service of provisional attachment orders. The Court acknowledged that the initial petitions challenged orders dated August 13, 2019, and that subsequent sets of provisional attachment orders were issued in July 2020 and July/August 2021. In light of the petitioner's request, the Court dismissed the instant writ petitions as withdrawn. It granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court with a comprehensive writ petition(s) in the future, stating that the validity of such future petitions would be examined as per law. No specific issue regarding the validity of the provisional attachment orders themselves was decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioners, Gulati Enterprises, Parvinder Gulati, and Tarun Gulati, filed writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders issued by the respondents (Union of India and GST authorities). The initial petitions assailed provisional attachment orders dated August 13, 2019. Subsequently, a second set of provisional attachment orders was issued around July 2020, followed by a third set dated July 27, 2021/August 4, 2021. The petitioners' counsel informed the Court that they wished to withdraw the current writ petitions to file a more comprehensive petition addressing the repeated issuance of provisional attachment orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the repeated issuance of provisional attachment orders by the respondents constitutes an infraction of law, warranting a comprehensive challenge. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents have repeatedly issued provisional attachment orders, indicating a pattern of unlawful action. They sought to withdraw the current petitions to file a more comprehensive writ petition to address this alleged infraction of law. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents in response to the petitioner's request to withdraw and file a fresh petition.