Allowed

Lns Enterprises v. the Commissioner of Central G S T and Central Excise G S T Building

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026TAXC/66/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bilaspur heard four appeals filed against GST/Excise orders. The appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeals with liberty to approach other remedies. The respondent raised no objection. The Court granted permission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the appeals with liberty to take recourse to the remedy available under law was granted. Appeals stood dismissed as withdrawn.

Lns Enterprises Vs the Commissioner of Central G S… — GST and Indirect Tax | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREETKAUR Date: 2026.09.17 17:36:55 +0530

CGHC010344692026

2026:CGHC:40330-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

TAXC No. 62 of 2026

¶8

LNS Dhanraj Tobacco Export Through Partner Nimish Sunil Agrawal Son Of Shri Sunil Agrawal Aged About 47 Years Ge Road, VillageTedesara, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.)- 491441

¶9

--- Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

The Commissioner Of Central Gst And Cental Excise Gst Building, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)- 492001

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

TAXC No. 66 of 2026

¶14

LNS Enterprises Through Prop. Nimish Sunil Agrawal Son Of Sunil Agrawal Aged About 47 Years G E Road, Village -Tedesara, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) -491441

¶15

--- Petitioner(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

The Commissioner Of Central G S T And Central Excise G S T Building Dhantari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) -492001

¶18

--- Respondent(s)

¶19

TAXC No. 64 of 2026

¶20

LNS Dhanraj Tobacco Export Through Partner Nimish Sunil Agrawal S/o Shir Sunil Agrawal -Aged About 47 Years G E Road, Village Tedesars, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, C. G. 491441.

¶21

--- Petitioner(s)

¶22

¶23

Versus

¶24

The Commissioner Of Central Gst And Central Excise G S T Building Dhamtari, Road Tikrapara, Raipur District Raipur C.G. 492001.

¶25

--- Respondent(s)

¶26

TAXC No. 63 of 2026

¶27

L N S Dhanraj Tobacco Export Through Partner Nimish Sunil Agrawal S/o Shri Sunil Agrawal Aged About 47 Years G.E. Road, Village Tedesara, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 491441

¶28

--- Petitioner(s)

¶29

Versus

¶30

The Commissioner Of Central G S T And Central Excise G S T Building, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001

¶31

--- Respondent(s)

¶32

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhwaha, Advocate

¶33

Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶34

Hon'ble Mrs. Sushma Sawant, Judge

¶35

Order on Board

¶36

Per Parth Prateem Sahu , Judge

¶37

16.09.2026

¶38

Heard Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhwaha, learned counsel for respondents.

¶39

¶40

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present appeals, with liberty to take recourse to the remedy available under law.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection.

¶42

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, these appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶43

Certified copy of the documents annexed in the appeals, if any, be returned back to the counsel for the appellants after obtaining the photocopy of the same.

¶44

Sd/Sd/-

¶45

(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) Judge Judge

¶46

Manpreet

Lns Enterprises v. the Commissioner of Central G S T and Central Excise G S T Building

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lns Enterprises v. the Commissioner of Central G S T and Central Excise G S T Building

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases