2026 (1) TMI 1150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt. 2. At the outset, we may record that the averments made in paragraph No. 17 of the memo of the writ petition. The same reads as under:- "17. That the petitioner herein under the above facts and circumstances filed the Special Civil Application No. 1266/2025, wherein vide order dated 18/6/2025, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition, in order to file application u/s. 30 of the Central/ State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the copy of the order is annexed as Annexure-J." 3. Thus, a bare perusal of the averment made in paragraph No. 17 reveals that the petitioner has merely pointed out that he had filed Special Civil Application No. 1266 of 2025, which was permitted to be withdrawn ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds as under: - "D. YOUR LORDSHIPS; be pleased to direct the respondent authority to decide the application preferred u/s. 30 of the Central/State Goods and service Tax Act, 2017, in the interest of justice. E. Pass any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in the interest of justice." 6. At this stage, we may refer to the prayers made in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1266 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Court as withdrawn at the request of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner for the purpose of preferring an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act. 7. The prayers ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y made in the earlier petition, were not addressed by the Coordinate Bench, and no leave was sought by the petitioner to challenge the same subsequently, in the event of any orders being passed pursuant to the application filed under Section 30 of the CGST Act. 10. In the entire writ petition, we do not find any averment suggesting that in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 29.11.2024 and that the said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. The petitioner has, in fact, suppressed the material fact that for the very same prayer challenging the Appellate Order dated 29.11.2024, an earlier writ petition had already been filed and withdrawn, and has attempted to mislead this Court by making the averme....