Idp Education INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, IDP Education India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents included the Union of India and others. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that they no longer wished to press the challenge to the vires of the said section, as the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) had been constituted and was functional. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the appellate remedy and requested a time-bound disposal of the appeal. The counsel for the Union of India noted that since the vires of a Central enactment was challenged, notice to the Attorney General for India was required.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner no longer wished to proceed with the challenge to the vires of Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rendering the writ petition infructuous. Consequently, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. It was further directed that the period during which the writ petition was pending would be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The GSTAT Kolkata was requested to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within a period of four months from the date of its filing. The writ petition was disposed of along with all connected applications.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition challenging the vires of Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to pursue an appellate remedy before the GSTAT? 2. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal? 3. Whether the GSTAT should be directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal expeditiously? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition as it had become infructuous due to the GSTAT becoming functional. They requested liberty to approach the appellate forum and prayed for a direction for time-bound disposal of their appeal. They also sought exclusion of the period the writ petition was pending for limitation purposes. Revenue/State's Arguments: The counsel for the Union of India submitted that since the vires of a Central enactment was challenged, notice was required to be served upon the learned Attorney General for India. No specific argument was recorded regarding the petitioner's request for withdrawal or time-bound disposal.
Sections Cited
Section 13(8)(b), Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD-22 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/523/2023 BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE Date: 25th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Kumar Harshavardhan, Adv. (vc) ..for petitioner.
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for the State
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv. Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv. Ms. Anukriti Agarwal, Adv. ..for Union of India.
The Court: In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Section 13(8)b of the Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to press the challenge to vires at this stage as the Good and Services Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is now functional. He seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the appellate remedy and prays for a direction for time bound disposal of the appeal. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, submits that since the vires of a Central enactment has been challenged, notice is required to be served upon the learned Attorney General for India.
2
In view of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition has rendered infructuous since he does not wish to proceed with the challenge to vires of Section 13(8)b of the Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. If an appeal is preferred, the same be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal within a period of four weeks from date before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The period during which the petition has been pending be excluded for computing limitation. The GSTAT Kolkata is requested to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of along with all connected applications. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(SMITA DAS DE, J.)
S.Mandi
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.