Facts of the Case

M/s. Ranjith Bore Wells had filed this writ petition against the Commissioner of CT & GST and another opposite party. When the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the adjudicating authority had, in the meantime, passed an order rectifying the defects that were the subject of the writ petition, and that the petitioner accordingly did not wish to press the petition any further.

No facts of the underlying GST dispute, no issue framed by the Court, and no arguments on either side are recorded — the order is confined entirely to recording this statement and disposing of the petition on that basis.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition survived for adjudication once the petitioner's counsel stated it was not being pressed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Since the adjudicating authority had already rectified the defects giving rise to the dispute, the petitioner did not wish to press the writ petition.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No response from the opposite parties is recorded, as the petitioner did not press the petition.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court recorded the statement of the petitioner's counsel and dismissed the writ petition as not pressed.
  • No finding was made on the merits of the underlying GST dispute.

Important Clarification

['Because the underlying defect was independently rectified by the adjudicating authority before the hearing, this order records no substantive ruling on any GST question. It illustrates only that a writ petition becomes infructuous, and will simply be dismissed as not pressed, once the grievance is resolved administratively.', 'Taxpayers should note that pursuing rectification with the GST authority directly can sometimes resolve a dispute faster than litigation, rendering a parallel writ petition unnecessary.']

Sections Involved

  • Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — general adjudication and rectification framework (specific provision not identified in the order)
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of as not pressed — no decision on merits was rendered for either side.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
  • Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 23778 of 2023
  • Coram: Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman
  • Date of Order: 10.08.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.