M/S Aditya Associates vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

For WP No. 22647/2022 and 26 connected matters, the Court accepted the submission that the dispute related to GST and that these petitions were disposed of by a separate order on 17.12.2025. Therefore, no further orders were required for these petitions. For WP No. 35830/2025, the Court noted that the Revenue had filed a writ appeal (W.A.No.1089/2026) which was restored by the Division Bench for reconsideration on merits. In light of this development and after hearing the Revenue's counsel, the Court ordered that this specific writ petition be de-tagged and relisted for preliminary hearing on 11.08.2026. The ratio for the first set of petitions is that once a matter is disposed of by a specific order, no further action is needed unless that order is challenged and set aside. For the second petition, the ratio is that if a higher court directs reconsideration of a matter, the lower court must comply and relist the case.

Facts

The petitioners, including M/s. Edge Solutions, filed writ petitions challenging orders related to GST. The High Court of Karnataka was considering these petitions. For a batch of petitions, including WP No. 22647/2022, the Court noted that the dispute pertained to GST and that these matters had been disposed of by a separate order dated 17.12.2025. Consequently, no further orders were required for these specific petitions. However, for WP No. 35830/2025, the Court was informed that the writ appeal filed by the Revenue (W.A.No.1089/2026) had been restored by the Division Bench for reconsideration on merits. The Division Bench's order dated 24.04.2026 in the writ appeal was perused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions concerning GST disputes, including WP No. 22647/2022 and 26 connected matters, stand disposed of by the Court's order dated 17.12.2025, and thus require no further orders. The petitioner's side implicitly accepts this position by not arguing otherwise. The Revenue's side does not appear to have made specific arguments on this point as the matters are noted as disposed of. 2. Whether WP No. 35830/2025, which was part of a common order, needs to be relisted for preliminary hearing in light of the Division Bench's order in W.A. No. 1089/2026, which restored the matter for reconsideration on merits. The petitioner argues that the writ petition should be relisted as per the Division Bench's direction. The Revenue, through its Standing Counsel, was heard in light of the Division Bench's order.