DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6 PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/5090/2024HC BombayHCBM01005639202408 April 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed both writ petitions as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the appeals filed before the ITAT. The court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. This means the dismissal of the writ petitions was on a procedural basis, allowing the petitioner to proceed with their substantive appeals before the ITAT. The court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute or the ITAT's orders in the Miscellaneous Applications. The ratio decidendi is that a party can withdraw a petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedies, provided it does not prejudice the other side and all rights are preserved.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dhanraj Chhaganlal Shah, filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. These petitions challenged orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Miscellaneous Applications. The petitioner had also filed appeals before the ITAT, along with applications for condonation of delay, challenging the original orders. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the present writ petitions. The intention was to pursue the appeals filed before the ITAT, where all available legal grounds would be raised. The respondents were the DCIT Circle 6, Pune, and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted leave to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to pursue appeals filed before the ITAT, particularly when the writ petitions challenge orders passed in Miscellaneous Applications before the ITAT. Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petitions, stating that they intended to pursue the appeals filed before the ITAT and would raise all available grounds in those appeals. This implies a procedural decision to abandon the current petitions in favor of the appellate route. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the withdrawal of the petitions. The revenue was represented, but their arguments on this specific point are not detailed in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 410-411-wp-5089&5090-24-wp-5067-24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (410) WRIT PETITION NO. 5089 OF 2024 Dhanraj Chhaganlal Shah ...Petitioner Versus DCIT Circle 6 Pune And Ors ...Respondents WITH (411) WRIT PETITION NO. 5090 OF 2024 Dhanraj Chhaganlal Shah ...Petitioner Versus DCIT Circle 6 Pune And Ors ...Respondents ---- Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar for Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Khanchandani for Respondent No.1 ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 8th APRIL 2024 P.C. : 1 Mr. Naniwadekar states that assessee has filed appeals impugning the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) together with applications for condonation of delay. These petitions are against the orders passed in Misc Applications filed before the ITAT. Mr. Niwadekar on instructions seeks leave to withdraw these two petitions with liberty to pursue the appeals filed. Mr. Nainiwadekar states petitioner will raise all grounds available in law in the two appeals filed. Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2024.04.10 14:50:30 +0530

2/2 410-411-wp-5089&5090-24-wp-5067-24.doc 2 In view of the above, both the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. 3 All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →