9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal and petitioner seeks refund of input tax credit amounting to Rs 19,65,00,000/-. 2. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents on the ground that petitioner had earlier filed a petition being WP (C) 10647/2021 claiming exactly the same relief. However, said petition was unconditionally withdrawn on 29.10.2021 and as such the present petition would be barred applying the principle of res-judicata and issue estoppel. 3. This is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that said petition was withdrawn though unconditionally however petitioner had clarified that he would not wish to press for refund till the investigation was completed.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 petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residential premises; and/or (e) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to provide the DSC / digital signatures of the directors of the Petitioner; and/or (f) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to provide the copies of documents that have been seized under the provisions of Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; and/or (g) Grant cost of the petition; and" Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that he wishes to withdraw the present writ petition unconditionally. He also clarifies that the petitioner does not wish to press for refund or reversal of input tax credit till the investigation is complete. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (C) 10647/2021. 8. Order dated 29.10.2021 in WP (C) 10647/2021 clearly records that petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition unconditionally. Further, the Court also recorded that no liberty was granted to the petitioner while the petition was being dismissed. 9. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV) vs State of Maharashtra (2008) 1 SCC 494 is misplaced. 10. Reference may also be have to Sarva Shramik Sanghatana wherein the Supreme Court has held that :- "13. We are of the opinion that the decision in Sarguja Transport case (supra) has to be understood in the light of the observations in paragraphs 8 & 9 therein, which have been quoted above. The said decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so that they can file a second petition before a more suitable or convenient bench. The Supreme Court discouraged the said move on the ground of bench hunting. 12. However, in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (supra) the Supreme Court noticed that in that case application had been made for withdrawal on a bona fide ground where the respondents therein had called for a meeting for amicable settlement. 13. In the instant case, we note that there was no such offer made by the respondents calling for petitioner to come for an amicable settlement. It appears that at the time of hearing of the matter when the bench was not agreeing with the petitioner, petitioner unconditionally sought to withdraw the petition. Our abovesaid observation is being made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
