What did the High Court hold?

The High Court permitted the withdrawal of all the petitions. The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue their remedies at appropriate stages or by filing fresh petitions.

The petitioners in these criminal miscellaneous petitions sought to withdraw their cases. In two cases, they sought liberty to raise grounds at an appropriate stage, while in the third case, the petitioner intended to file an appropriate petition due to the low amount involved.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the petitioners should be allowed to withdraw their criminal miscellaneous petitions with liberty to pursue alternative remedies.

CIT vs M/s. P AND J Cretchem Pvt. Ltd | Telangana High Court 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 327 of 2013

Vikash Kumar Sinha ….…… Petitioner

Versus

Union of India through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand …… Opp. Party

With Cr.M.P. No. 2674 of 2012

Gita Korah @ Geeta Kora @ Gita Kora ….…… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand 2. Union of India through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur …… Opp. Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2453 of 2013

Shashmita Das @ Sosmita Dash ….…… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Ranchi. …… Opp. Parties

--------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

--------- For the Petitioners : M/s Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Salil Sitanshu, Sanjay Kumar and Vinay Prakash, Advocates (in Cr.M.P. No. 327/2013) M/s Suraj Kumar, Advocate ( in Cr.M.P 2674/2012) Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate (in Cr.M.P. No. 2453/2013)

For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. (in Cr.M.P. Nos. 327/13 & 2674/12) Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P. ( in Cr.M.P. No. 2453/2013) For the Income Tax Dept. : Mr. Ratenesh Nandan Sahay, Advocate ( in all cases). ……………..

11/Dated: 18/08/2023

Cr.M.P. No. 327 of 2013 & Cr.M.P. No. 2674 of 2012

Cr.M.P. No. 327 of 2013 is arising out of Complaint Case No. 10 of 2012 and Cr.M.P. No. 2674 of 2012 is arising out of Complaint Case No. 02 of 2012. 2. After some arguments, learned counsels for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw these petitions with liberty to to take all the grounds at appropriate stage. 3. Learned counsels for the State and Income Tax Department have got

no objection. 4. Accordingly, both Cr.M.P. Nos. 327 of 2013 and Cr.M.P. No. 2674 of 2012 are permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Interim orders passed in respective cases are vacated. Cr.M.P. No. 2453 of 2013

Cr.M.P. No. 2453 of 2013 is arising out of Complaint Case No. 12 of 2012. 6. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he will file appropriate petition in view of Circular of 1992 as the amount in question involved in this case is below Rs. 25,000/-. He seeks permission to withdraw this petition. 7. In view of such submissions this petition is permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move before the learned court by way of filing appropriate petition. 8. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. M/s. P AND J Cretchem Pvt. Ltd.,

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments