M/S Madikeri Construction Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court acknowledged that the writ petitions listed, including WP No. 22647/2022 and 26 connected matters, related to GST and had been disposed of by a separate order on December 17, 2025. No further orders were deemed necessary for these specific petitions. Regarding WP No. 35830/2025, the Court noted that the Revenue had filed an appeal (WA No. 1089/2026) against the previous order, and the Division Bench had restored the matter for reconsideration on its merits. Consequently, WP No. 35830/2025 was de-tagged from the other matters and directed to be re-listed for preliminary hearing on August 11, 2026. The ratio for WP No. 22647/2022 and its connected matters is that once a matter is disposed of by a specific order, no further action is required unless challenged and restored. For WP No. 35830/2025, the principle is that if an appeal leads to a remand for reconsideration on merits, the original writ petition is to be relisted.

Facts

The petitioners, including M/s. Edge Solutions, filed writ petitions challenging orders related to GST. The High Court of Karnataka was to pass a common decision for these petitions. However, the court noted that the dispute in WP No. 22647/2022 and 26 connected matters pertains to GST and these petitions were disposed of by a separate order on December 17, 2025. For WP No. 35830/2025, the petitioner's counsel stated that the writ petition was disposed of based on a common order. The Revenue had appealed this order in WA No. 1089/2026, and the Division Bench restored the matter for reconsideration, directing that the writ appeal be adjudicated on merits. The Standing Counsel for the Revenue was heard in light of the Division Bench's order dated April 24, 2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions concerning GST disputes, including WP No. 22647/2022 and connected matters, were correctly disposed of by a separate order dated December 17, 2025, as stated by the court. Petitioner's Argument (implied): The petitioner in WP No. 35830/2025 argued that their writ petition was disposed of based on a common order. Revenue's Argument (implied): The Revenue appealed the common order in WA No. 1089/2026, leading to the Division Bench restoring WP No. 35830/2025 for reconsideration on merits.