Shri Sanjay Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the validity of notice dated 12.3.2020 issued by the Superintendent (Preventive), CGST Central Excise, Manik Bag, Indore vide Annexure P/3, as well as, constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 submits that during pendency of this petition, the demand of tax raised by the respondents vide impugned notice has been satisfied by respondent No.5 and after deposit of the said tax, respondent No.3 has withdrawn the notice (Annexure P/3), therefore, now no cause survives to continue with this petition.

In view of the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4, this petition so far as to relates to challenge to validity of notice (Annexure P/3) has rendered infructuous.

So far as constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 is concerned, same is already under challenge before other High Courts. In view of the aforesaid, no cause survives now and this petition is accordingly disposed of.