Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Naresh Kumar Agrawal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Union of India and other opposite parties, including the CT & GST Organisation, challenging an order passed against him under the GST regime. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Chittaranjan Das, Advocate, while the CT & GST Organisation (opposite parties 3 and 5) was represented by its Standing Counsel and opposite party 4 by a Junior Standing Counsel. The matter was taken up through hybrid mode on 23.11.2023 before a Division Bench comprising the Acting Chief Justice and a companion judge, and was listed as the first order of the day.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition should be permitted to be withdrawn once the petitioner recognised that the impugned order was appealable under the GST statute.
  2. Whether liberty should be granted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy in place of continuing with the writ petition.
  3. Whether any observations on the merits of the underlying dispute were necessary or appropriate at the stage of permitting withdrawal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Since the order impugned in the writ petition is an appealable order, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition rather than continue pressing it before the writ court.
  • The petitioner requested liberty to approach the appropriate statutory appellate forum in accordance with law.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Organisation and the Junior Standing Counsel appeared for the opposite parties; no opposition is recorded to the petitioner's request for withdrawal with liberty, since the underlying order remained available for challenge before the statutory appellate authority.

Court Order/Findings

  • Accepting the submission of the petitioner's counsel, the Court noted that the impugned order is an appealable one, and the petitioner wished to withdraw the writ petition to pursue that alternative statutory remedy instead.
  • The writ petition was accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate forum in accordance with law, leaving all contentions of both sides open for that forum.
  • No findings were recorded on the merits of the underlying dispute, and no observations were made on the correctness or legality of the impugned order, which remains entirely open to be tested afresh in appeal.

Important Clarification

Where an order under challenge in a writ petition is appealable under the GST statute, courts routinely permit withdrawal of the writ with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, rather than adjudicating the dispute themselves — reflecting the general principle that writ jurisdiction is not meant to bypass an efficacious alternative remedy. Such an order of withdrawal with liberty leaves the petitioner free to raise all factual and legal contentions afresh before the appellate authority, without any prejudice from observations (there being none) in the writ proceeding, though the petitioner must still be mindful of the limitation period applicable to the statutory appeal.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — provides the statutory appellate remedy against orders passed by the proper officer, which the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue in place of the writ petition.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — the writ jurisdiction originally invoked by the petitioner, from which he chose to withdraw once the appealable nature of the impugned order was recognised.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a purely procedural disposal on withdrawal, with no adjudication on merits of the underlying GST dispute. It cannot honestly be characterised as a win for either the Assessee or the Department; the petitioner simply chose, on his own counsel's submission, to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of continuing before the writ court, and the Division Bench merely recorded and preserved that choice through the grant of liberty, leaving the correctness of the impugned order entirely open for the appellate authority to decide.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
  • Case No.: W.P.(C) No.32951 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman
  • Decision Date: 2023-11-23
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of as withdrawn with liberty

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.