Naresh Women Hair Enterprises vs. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Naresh Women Hair Enterprises, challenged a condition in a tender notification issued by Sri Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam (respondent No. 3) for the collection of human hair. The condition required the highest bidder to pay GST at 18%. The tender was for the period August 1, 2022, to July 31, 2023, and the notification was dated August 8, 2022. The petitioner argued that this condition was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as well as guidelines from the Ministry of Finance exempting human hair from GST. Although the petitioner was permitted to participate in the tender process, they did not actually participate. The tender process has since been finalized in favor of third parties and confirmed.

Held

The High Court noted that although the petitioner was permitted to participate in the tender process, they ultimately did not participate. The tender process has already been finalized in favor of third parties and has been confirmed. Consequently, the Court found that nothing survived in the Writ Petition. The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the tender process was already concluded. However, the Court explicitly stated that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition were left open to be agitated in an appropriate writ petition at an appropriate stage. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition to pay GST @ 18% by the highest bidder in the auction for the collection of human hair is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, without the respondent having the power or jurisdiction, and in violation of Ministry of Finance guidelines exempting human hair from GST? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the condition imposing GST on the highest bidder was illegal and arbitrary. They argued it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Furthermore, they asserted that the action was without jurisdiction and contrary to guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, which purportedly exempt human hair from GST. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.