Aruvelrajan Minerals vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition and made an endorsement to that effect. Recording this submission, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn. No costs were imposed. The specific grounds for withdrawal or the merits of the original petition were not discussed or decided by the Court. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn.

Facts

The petitioner, Arulvelrajan Minerals, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Appellate Authority (ST), GST Appeal, Tirunelveli, dated January 5, 2024. Consequently, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the first respondent to number their appeal dated December 9, 2023, and consider it on its merits. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner/Appellate Authority and the Commercial Tax Officer (GST).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated January 5, 2024, passed by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to number the petitioner's appeal dated December 9, 2023, and consider it on merits. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. The judgment records no specific arguments made by the petitioner prior to the withdrawal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents.