Shri. Aniket Yogendra Singh vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors
Held
The Court noted that pursuant to an order passed on 20.06.2022, Mr. Anurag Jain, Area Manager for respondent no. 3, was present and tendered copies of the summons, a letter from respondent no. 3 to the petitioner, and a communication to the GST office. Smt. Vyas, for the respondents, stated that a letter dated 21.06.2022 had been addressed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to respondent no. 3 withdrawing the summons dated 10.05.2022. A copy of this communication was taken on record. In view of this development, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition. The Court granted this leave. The ratio decidendi is that when the action complained of in a writ petition is withdrawn by the relevant authority, and the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition, the Court will permit such withdrawal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn.
Facts
The petitioner, Aniket Y. Singh, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra and others, specifically respondent no. 3, which was represented by its Chief Manager/Branch Manager and Area Manager. The matter concerned a summons dated 10.05.2022 issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 3, a letter dated 19.05.2022 from respondent no. 3 to the petitioner, and a communication addressed to the GST office in response to the summons. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax addressed a letter dated 21.06.2022 to respondent no. 3, withdrawing the summons dated 10.05.2022.
Key Issues
1. Whether the withdrawal of the summons by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax renders the writ petition infructuous, thereby warranting its dismissal as withdrawn? The petitioner argued that in light of the withdrawal of the summons by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, the purpose of the writ petition, which was likely to challenge or seek relief concerning the summons, had been rendered moot. Therefore, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and respondent no. 3, did not appear to contest the withdrawal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state regarding the merits of the original grievance, only their acquiescence to the withdrawal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
903-WP-7029-2022.doc - Chitra Sonawane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7029 OF 2022 Aniket Y. Singh .. Petitioner
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Mr.Brijesh Pathak for petitioner. Smt. S.D. Vyas, GP ‘B’ panel for respondent. Ms Ferzana Behramkamdin a/w Ms Kalyani Deshmukh i/b FZB & Associates. Mr. Hitesh Gala, Chief Manager/Branch Manager for respondent no.
Mr. Anurag Jain, Area Manager for respondent no.3. ….
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN, JJ.
DATED : 21st JUNE, 2022. P.C.
Ms Behramkamdin undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3 within one week from today. Statement accepted.
Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 20.6.2022, Mr.Anurag Jain-Area Manager is present in the Court and tenders copy of summons dated 10.05.2022, letter dated 19.5.2022 from respondent no.3 to petitioner and communication addressed to GST office in response to 1 of 4 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2022.06.22 18:46:38 +0530
903-WP-7029-2022.do
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 Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.