Fabtech Projects And Engineers LTD. vs. Oil INDIA LTD. And 7 Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the interlocutory application and closed the writ petition (WP(C) No. 648/2018) on the grounds that it was not being further pressed. The Court reasoned that the petitioner, Fabtech Projects and Engineers Ltd., had sought to withdraw the writ petition in its current form due to the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. This resolution plan included provisions for the extinguishment of statutory liabilities, including GST dues, and stipulated that OIL would not contest certain claims further. The respondent, OIL, did not object to this prayer. Therefore, the Court granted the petitioner's request to close the writ petition. Crucially, liberty was granted to the applicant to approach the Court again, if so advised, indicating that the withdrawal was not on merits but a procedural closure. No specific findings were made on the GST deduction issue itself.

Facts

Fabtech Projects and Engineers Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition (WP(C) No. 648/2018) before the Gauhati High Court challenging a communication dated January 12, 2018, from Oil India Ltd. (OIL), the respondent. This communication pertained to the deduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from bills payable to the petitioner for works undertaken for OIL. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking to withdraw the writ petition in its current form, with liberty to file afresh. This request was made because a resolution plan had been approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The resolution plan stipulated that certain statutory liabilities, including GST dues, would be extinguished upon payment. The petitioner stated that they did not wish to pursue the writ petition in its present form due to this resolution plan.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the writ petition in its present form with liberty to file afresh, in light of the approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a resolution plan had been approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which extinguished all other statutory liabilities, including GST dues. The resolution plan specifically mentioned that OIL would not contest claims further and would make payment of the claimed amount, after which the matter would stand infructuous. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition in its current form and sought liberty to file afresh if advised. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, Oil India Ltd., did not object to the petitioner's prayer to not further pursue the writ petition in its present form.