Court permits withdrawal of Writ Petitions challenging GST Act section, grants liberty for alternative legal actions. No costs awarded.

The Court allowed the petitioners, Bharti Airtel Limited and Bharti Telemedia Limited, to withdraw their Writ Petitions challenging Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and did not award costs. Pending miscellaneous applications were directed to be closed, reflecting the legal process of withdrawal with liberty for the petitioners to challenge the validity of the tax provision independently.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as ultra vires and unconstitutional, confirmation of assessment orders by respondent No.6, withdrawal of Writ Petitions with liberty to challenge Section 16(2)(c).

Analysis:
In the present case, two Writ Petitions were filed by Bharti Airtel Limited and Bharti Telemedia Limited challenging Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as ultra vires and unconstitutional. Additionally, they contested separate assessment orders dated 16.11.2020 passed by respondent No.6, confirming tax amounts of Rs. 11,44,83,005 and Rs. 47,48,748, directing the petitioners to pay the tax along with penalties and interest under relevant tax Acts.

During the proceedings, Mr. Tarun Gulati, representing the petitioners, sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petitions with liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies. He also requested the liberty to independently challenge the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. This request was not opposed by the counsels for respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

The Court, after due consideration, disposed of the Writ Petitions on withdrawal with the liberty as prayed for by the petitioners. It is important to note that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and no costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous applications were directed to be closed as well. This judgment reflects the legal process of withdrawal with liberty for the petitioners to pursue their legal remedies in challenging the validity of the tax provision in question.

---