M/S Naveen Construction vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present writ petition. The withdrawal is granted with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, in accordance with law. The reasoning behind this decision is that the petitioner themselves sought to withdraw the petition to pursue a more appropriate legal recourse. The operative direction is that the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the aforementioned liberty granted to the petitioner. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the petition was disposed of on the petitioner's request for withdrawal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Naveen Construction, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent (Technical) of Central Goods and Service Tax Division. The specific tax period and the order or action under challenge, as well as the amount in dispute, are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the filing of the writ petition is also not detailed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through their counsel, sought to withdraw the writ petition. They requested permission to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, in accordance with the law. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's order implies that the withdrawal was permitted with the liberty to avail the statutory remedy.