Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (3) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Court had specifically clarified that no liberty has been granted to the petitioner is clearly indicates that when the bench were not agreeing with the petitioner, petitioner sought to unconditionally withdraw the petition. Further, this Court has also noticed that the director of the petitioner was not joining investigation and as such, the department was constrained to take the coercive steps. The petitioner having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, the petitioner is precluded from filing the present petition seeking the same relief which was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner. No doubt petitioner had withdrawn the proceedings pending investigation. However the said .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itioner had clarified that he would not wish to press for refund till the investigation was completed. He submits that the investigation is now completed and as such the petitioner has filed the subject petition. 4. We are informed that the investigation has found the petitioner culpable and liable and show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. 5. We may refer to order dated 29.10.2021 in WP (C) 10647/2021 which reads as under:- Present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayers: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration to declare the reversal of input tax credit by the Respondent on 22.07.2021 illegal as the same has been made under force and coercion on the date of search conducted at reside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He also clarifies that the petitioner does not wish to press for refund or reversal of input tax credit till the investigation is complete. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has not complied with the directions passed by this Court on 24th September, 2021 wherein the petitioner s director Mr. Tarun Jain was directed to join investigation. This Court is of the view that if Mr. Tarun Jain has not joined the investigation, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law. The statement made by learned counsel for petitioner is accepted by this Court petitioner is held bound by the same and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is clarified that no liberty has been given .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... understood in the light of the observations in paragraphs 8 9 therein, which have been quoted above. The said decision was given on the basis of public policy that, if while hearing the first writ petition the Bench is inclined to dismiss it, and the learned counsel withdraws the petition so that he could file a second writ petition before what he regards as a more suitable or convenient bench, then if he withdraws it he should not be allowed to file a second writ petition unless liberty is given to do so. In other words, bench-hunting should not be permitted. 14. It often happens that during the hearing of a petition the Court makes oral observations indicating that it is inclined to dismiss the petition. At this stage the counsel may see .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itioner, petitioner unconditionally sought to withdraw the petition. Our abovesaid observation is being made keeping in view the last line of the last paragraph of the order where the Court had specifically clarified that no liberty has been granted to the petitioner is clearly indicates that when the bench were not agreeing with the petitioner, petitioner sought to unconditionally withdraw the petition. Further, this Court has also noticed that the director of the petitioner was not joining investigation and as such, the department was constrained to take the coercive steps. 14. Reference may also be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar (2005) 1 SCC 787 wherein the Supreme Court referred to the deci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates