M/S. Nirania Mines vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Nirania Mines, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. The petition concerned the payment of GST on royalty. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Pankaj Ghiya, informed the Court that the issue regarding GST on royalty is currently pending adjudication before a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the relevant authority. This appeal would be subject to the final decision of the Apex Court. The respondents were the Union of India, the Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, the State of Rajasthan, and the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax).

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's prayer to withdraw the writ petition. The Court acknowledged that the issue of GST on royalty was pending before the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to permit the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the concerned authority. The Court further condoned any delay in the filing of such an appeal and granted the petitioner a period of 15 days to file the appropriate appeal. The reasoning was to allow the petitioner to pursue their remedies in light of the pending apex court decision, thereby avoiding premature adjudication and ensuring that any future action would align with the final ruling on the contentious issue of GST on royalty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the relevant authority, given that the issue of GST on royalty is pending before the Apex Court's Constitution Bench? The petitioner argued that due to the pendency of a crucial legal issue before the highest court, it would be prudent to withdraw the current petition and await the Apex Court's decision. They sought the liberty to file a fresh appeal later, which would be governed by the Apex Court's final adjudication. The petitioner relied on the principle that courts often grant such reliefs when a larger constitutional issue is under consideration by a superior court, preventing multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring consistency with the apex judicial pronouncement. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the withdrawal in the judgment.