Petitioner Withdraws GST Challenge, Court Vacates Interim Relief and Allows Potential Tax Proceedings to Proceed

HC dismissed a GST-related petition under Article 226 after petitioner sought withdrawal. The court vacated previous ad interim relief against potential coercive tax proceedings. Assistant Government Pleader emphasized adherence to prior case directions regarding procedural compliance. Petition was disposed of without examining substantive merits, allowing potential future administrative actions under GST framework.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against coercive action under GST Acts without due process.
2. Ad interim relief granted by Co-ordinate Bench.
3. Apprehension of coercive steps without basis.
4. Submission by Assistant Government Pleader regarding binding directions from a previous case.
5. Permission sought to withdraw the petition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against any coercive action under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the GST Acts without following due process of assessment and adjudication under Section 73/74 of the GST Acts for alleged evasion of tax liability. The petitioner requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate order restraining the respondent authorities from taking such action.

Issue 2: A Co-ordinate Bench of the Court had previously issued ad interim relief on November 25, 2019, stating that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the subject matter of the petition.

Issue 3: The petitioner's advocate expressed concerns that the respondent might take coercive steps against the petitioner without any valid basis, leading to the filing of the petition.

Issue 4: The Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents referred to a previous case, Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Versus State of Gujarat and Others, highlighting that the respondents are bound by the directions given in that case. It was emphasized that no coercive steps would be taken contrary to the directions provided in the said decision.

Issue 5: Following the submissions made by both parties, the petitioner's advocate sought permission to withdraw the petition at that stage. Consequently, without delving into the merits of the matter, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn, and the interim relief was vacated.

---