Facts of the Case

K M B Facility Management Service, Hubli, Dharwad District (GSTIN 29AAPFK1827Q2ZG), represented by its Managing Partner Mr. Mainuddin A. Kazi, filed Writ Petition No. 106503 of 2023 (T-RES) before the Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka against the Office of the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Belagavi, and other central tax officers. The petition sought to quash an Order-in-Original dated 15.11.2022 (No. Belagavi-CGST-000-HBL-AC-SD-17-2022-GST) as well as an earlier order dated 09.04.2021, and sought a writ of mandamus directing restoration of the petitioner's GST registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. When the matter came up for orders before Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde on 04.12.2023, the petitioner filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition. The memo was accepted, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, without any adjudication on the challenge to the Order-in-Original or the prayer for restoration of registration.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 15.11.2022 and the earlier order dated 09.04.2021, concerning the petitioner's GST registration, were liable to be quashed.
  2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing restoration of its GST registration bearing GSTIN 29AAPFK1827Q2ZG.
  3. Whether, once a memo seeking withdrawal was placed on record, the Court was required to examine these questions at all.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had originally sought quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 15.11.2022 and the earlier order dated 09.04.2021, and a mandamus directing restoration of its GST registration.
  • On the date the matter came up for orders, the petitioner instead filed a memo seeking the Court's permission to withdraw the writ petition, without placing any further reasons for the withdrawal on record.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No submissions or objections on behalf of the respondent authorities are recorded in this order, since the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's own memo seeking withdrawal.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted that a memo had been filed by the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the petition.
  • The memo was accepted, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, without the Court examining or expressing any opinion on the validity of the impugned Order-in-Original, the earlier order, or the prayer for restoration of GST registration.

Important Clarification

A writ petition challenging a GST registration cancellation order, or an Order-in-Original arising from it, can be withdrawn by the petitioner at any stage — including on the date fixed for orders — without any final adjudication on the validity of the impugned order. A dismissal as withdrawn creates no binding finding on the merits and does not by itself foreclose the taxpayer from pursuing another appropriate remedy, unless the withdrawal is recorded as unconditional or with liberty expressly declined. Readers should not treat such an order as either upholding or invalidating the cancellation of registration or the Order-in-Original that had been under challenge, since the Court never reached those questions.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – the statute under which the petitioner's GST registration was originally cancelled and the impugned Order-in-Original was passed.
  • Order-in-Original and restoration-of-registration mechanism under the CGST framework – the administrative process the petitioner sought to challenge and, alternatively, invoke through the withdrawn writ petition, covering both the cancellation order and the subsequent Order-in-Original arising from it.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India – the writ jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner, and equally the jurisdiction under which a petitioner remains free to withdraw a petition before final orders are pronounced.

Decision – In Favour of

No adjudication took place, since the petitioner itself chose to withdraw the writ petition before the Court examined either the Order-in-Original or the mandamus prayer. This is a purely procedural conclusion — neither in favour of the Assessee nor the Department on the merits — and offers no precedential guidance on the validity of the underlying Order-in-Original, the earlier order dated 09.04.2021, or the registration-restoration prayer that was originally pressed.

Related Case Laws

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

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 106503 of 2023 (T-RES)
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
  • Decision Date: 04 December 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed as withdrawn

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.