M/S Mahendra Educational Private Limited (Fy 2017-2018) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ applications with liberty to file an appeal should be granted. The Court reasoned that allowing the withdrawal would permit the petitioner to pursue their remedies through the appellate route, which is a statutory mechanism. The operative direction was to dismiss both writ applications as withdrawn, explicitly granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal. The Court further clarified that if an appeal is filed, it shall be disposed of in accordance with the law, taking into account the provisions of Section 107(4) of the CGST / BGST Act, 2017. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the core request for withdrawal was addressed.

Facts

M/s Mahendra Educational Private Limited filed two writ applications before the Patna High Court. The first application, CWJC No. 18105 of 2025, pertained to the financial year 2018-19, and the second, CWJC No. 18190 of 2025, concerned the financial year 2017-2018. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its principal place of business in Patna, Bihar. The respondents include the Union of India, the State of Bihar through its Commercial Tax Department, and the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna West Circle. The specific order or action under challenge and the amount in dispute are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that these matters were listed for hearing before a division bench of the High Court.

Key Issues

The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be granted permission to withdraw their writ applications. The petitioner, through their counsel, sought permission to withdraw both writ applications with the liberty to file an appeal. The Court had to decide whether to grant this permission. The petitioner argued for withdrawal to pursue an appeal, implying that the writ jurisdiction was not the appropriate forum or that an appeal would be more beneficial. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CGST & CX and other advocates, did not appear to contest the withdrawal, as the judgment states "After some argument, Mr. Anubhav Khowala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw both these writ applications with liberty to file Appeal." No specific arguments from the respondents regarding the withdrawal are recorded.