GST Petitioners Withdraw Case to First Seek Relief from Tax Authority

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax, Ludhiana

Court Name: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Case No.: CWP-1974-2019

Decided on: 24th January 2019

Key Takeaways

• The petitioners voluntarily withdrew their writ petition after partial arguments, indicating they preferred to exhaust the administrative remedy first before approaching the High Court.

• The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn but importantly preserved the petitioners’ right to pursue all legal remedies available in accordance with law.

• This case reflects a common legal principle — courts often encourage parties to first exhaust administrative/statutory remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

• No merits of the case were decided — so this judgment does not set any legal precedent on the substantive GST issues involved.

Issue

The central question before the court was:

Were the letters dated 11.06.2018 and 15.06.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, GST Division, Ludhiana, legally valid and should they be quashed?

However, this question was never answered by the court because the petitioners withdrew the petition before the court could rule on it.

Facts

1. Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others (the petitioners) were aggrieved by two letters — dated 11.06.2018 and 15.06.2018 — issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Division, Central Savitri Complex – II, Dada Motor, G.T. Road, Ludhiana (referred to as Annexure P-5 and P-6 in the petition).

2. The petitioners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash those two letters.

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.01.2019, the petitioners’ lawyer argued for some time but then changed course — he requested the court to allow withdrawal of the petition.

4. The reason for withdrawal was that the petitioners wanted to first approach the respondent (GST Commissioner) directly by filing a detailed and comprehensive representation, bringing all the facts mentioned in the writ petition to the authority’s notice.

5. The court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the petition accordingly.

Arguments

Since the petition was withdrawn before full arguments, there isn’t much to report here. But here’s what we know:

Petitioners’ Side (Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others):

• They challenged the two letters dated 11.06.2018 and 15.06.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, GST Division, Ludhiana.
• They filed the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash those letters.
• After arguing for some time, their counsel decided it was better to first exhaust the administrative remedy by filing a representation before the GST authority, rather than continuing with the High Court petition.

Respondent’s Side (Commissioner of GST, Ludhiana):

• The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent’s side, as the matter was disposed of on the petitioners’ request to withdraw.

Key Legal Precedents

The judgment is very brief and does not cite any legal precedents or case laws. No specific sections of the GST Act or any other statute were discussed in the judgment, as the case was withdrawn before any substantive legal analysis could take place.

The only constitutional provisions referenced are:

• Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — which give the High Court the power to issue writs (like certiorari, mandamus, etc.) and to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals.

Judgment

The court’s decision was simple and clean:

• The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.01.2019.
• The court, however, made it clear that the petitioners are free to take recourse to any remedies available to them in accordance with law — meaning they can:
• File a representation before the GST Commissioner,
• Approach the appropriate appellate authority under the GST law, or
• Come back to the High Court if needed.
• The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.

FAQs

Q1: Why did the petitioners withdraw the case?

The petitioners’ lawyer felt it was better to first approach the GST authority directly with a detailed representation, rather than continuing with the High Court petition. This is a common strategy — exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.

Q2: Does this judgment mean Cannon Industries lost the case?

Not really! The case was simply withdrawn — the court did not rule against them on merits. They still have the right to pursue all available legal remedies.

Q3: What were the two letters about?

The judgment does not reveal the specific content of the letters dated 11.06.2018 and 15.06.2018. We only know they were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, GST Division, Ludhiana, and the petitioners found them objectionable enough to challenge in the High Court.

Q4: Can Cannon Industries come back to the High Court later?

Yes, absolutely! The court specifically preserved their right to pursue remedies “as may be available in accordance with law.” So if the GST authority doesn’t resolve their grievance, they can approach the High Court again.

Q5: Does this case set any legal precedent?

No. Since the case was withdrawn without any ruling on the merits, it does not establish any legal precedent on GST law or any other legal issue.

Q6: What is a writ of certiorari?

A writ of certiorari is a legal order issued by a higher court (like the High Court) to a lower court or authority, directing it to send up the records of a case for review. In this context, the petitioners wanted the High Court to review and quash the letters issued by the GST authority.

1. The petitioners inter alia have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letters dated 11.06.2018 and 15.06.2018 (Annexure P-5 and P-6) respectively issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Division, Central Savitri Complex – II, Dada Motor, G.T. Road, Ludhiana.

2. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present

petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent-

authority by filing a detailed and comprehensive representation at the

first instance bringing the facts as stated in the writ petition to his notice.

3. Dismissed as withdrawn. However, it shall be open to the

petitioners to take recourse to the remedies as may be, available to it, in

accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

JUDGE

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)

JUDGE