M/S Apkon Ventures Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court accepted the submission that the writ petitions listed along with the other matters were inadvertently included, as the dispute related to GST and had been disposed of by a separate order on December 17, 2025. Therefore, no further orders were required for those petitions. In the specific case of W.P.No.35830/2025, the Court noted that the Revenue had filed a writ appeal against the common order, and the Division Bench had restored the matter for reconsideration on merits. Consequently, this writ petition was de-tagged, and the office was directed to re-list it for preliminary hearing on August 11, 2026. The ratio appears to be that matters already disposed of by a specific order, or where appellate proceedings are underway on merits, should be handled accordingly, either by noting no further orders are required or by re-listing for further consideration.

Facts

The petitioners, including M/s. Edge Solutions, filed writ petitions challenging orders related to GST. These petitions were initially listed with other matters. However, the counsels for the parties stated that the dispute pertains to GST and that these specific petitions were disposed of by a separate order dated December 17, 2025. In one specific case, W.P.No.35830/2025, the petitioner's counsel noted that the writ petition was disposed of based on a common order. The Revenue had filed a writ appeal (W.A.No.1089/2026) against this common order, and the Division Bench had 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 this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions concerning GST disputes, which were disposed of by a common order dated December 17, 2025, require further adjudication by this Court? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner in W.P.No.35830/2025 argued that their writ petition was disposed of based on a common order. They further submitted that the Revenue has appealed this common order to the Division Bench, which has restored the matter for reconsideration with directions for adjudication on merits. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, through its Standing Counsel, was heard in light of the Division Bench's order in W.A.No.1089/2026, which directed reconsideration of the matter on merits.