Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24737 (RAJ)

M/S GOYAL OIL PRODUCT v. UNION OF INDIA

CW/10849/2025 · 2025-07-29

Anand Sharma, K R Shriram

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:28510-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10849/2025 M/s Goyal Oil Product, B-8, Nw2, Chandpole Anaz Mandi, Jaipur- 302001 Through Its Proprietor Sh. Harshit Goyal S/o Sunil Goyal ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur. 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 4. The Additional Director, Dggi, Jaipur Zonal Unit, C- Scheme, Jaipur. 5. The Additional / Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax, Cgst Jaipur Commissionerate, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Ghiya with Ms. Paridhi Jain & Mr. Mayank Vyas For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vartika Mehra Mr. Rakesh Choudhary HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/07/2025 1. After petition was heard for some time, counsel for petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a further reply to show cause notice since what was filed earlier was only an interim reply. [2025:RJ-JP:28510-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10849/2025] 2. A further reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks from today. 3. Personal hearing can be fixed on a date after two weeks. Notice of personal hearing shall be communicated at least five working days in advance. 4. Moreover, if the adjudicating authority is going to rely on any judgment or order of any Court or tribunal, a list thereof shall be made available if they are reported and if they are unreported, then copy thereof shall also be made available along with notice for personal hearing so that petitioner will be able to effectively deal with/distinguish the same. 5. Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as noted earlier. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/10