The Delhi High Court ruled that the applicant, having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being declined to the applicant, is prevented from filing the new petition asking for that relief that was before withdrawn by the applicant.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja laid on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service vs. STAT, where the Supreme Court clarified that the principle underlying Order 23 Rule 1 CPC must be extended to a written petition in the interest of the administration of justice, not just on the resjudicata but on the foundation of public policy, and to prevent litigants from indulging in bench hunting tactics.
The Supreme Court witnessed that very often when the arguments are advanced and the parties think that the Court is not agreeing with them, they ask for the withdrawal of the petition so that they can file a second petition to a more suitable or suitable bench. Such moves are been discouraged by the Supreme Court based on bench hunting.
The applicant asks for a declaration that the reversal of the input tax credit by the respondent/department is prohibited and pursues a refund of the input tax credit amounting to Rs 19,65,00,000.
A primary complaint is raised via the respondents on the foundation that the applicant had filed a petition before, WP (C) 10647/2021, claiming identical relief. The petition was withdrawn on October 29, 2021, and as such, the ongoing petition would be barred, applying the principle of resjudicata and allocating estoppel.
Read Also: Delhi HC Cancels Order Relating Mismatch in GST ITC Due to Lack of Proper Hearing
The applicant argued that the plea was withdrawn but unconditionally, while the applicant stated that he does not want to ask for a refund till the closure of the investigation. The investigation has been finished and the petitioner has filed the subject petition.
The court observed that during the hearing of the case when the bench was not regarding the applicant, the applicant asked to withdraw the petition. In the last line of the last paragraph of the order the court said that no privilege had been given to the applicant and showed that if the bench did not agree with the applicant, the applicant asked to withdraw the petition.
The court witnessed that the petitioner’s director was not joining the investigation and the GST council was pushed to take coercive steps.
The applicant has withdrawn the former plea and no exemption is given to the applicant, the applicant is prevented from filing the ongoing petition asking for relief which was withdrawn before by the applicant. Firmly, the applicant had withdrawn the proceedings pending investigation.
However, the stated qualification shall be exclusively applicable when the investigation has absolved the applicant. In the matter, the applicant was discovered culpable, and therefore a Show Cause Notice (SCN) has been furnished to the applicant which is pending adjudication, the court mentioned during dismissing the petition.
| Case Title | Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India & ORS |
| Citation | W.P. (C) 438/2024 |
| Date | 18.03.2024 |
| For the Petitioner | Mr. Sahil Yadav, Advocate (through VC) |
| For the Respondents | Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Ms Sunita Shukla, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur & Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocates |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
