Me Hin Tech Edge Solutions vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Me Hin Tech Edge Solutions vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All petitions disposed of with liberty and directions, no costs: petitioners not pressing the petitions were permitted to institute appeals within eight weeks from the date of uploading of the order before the appellate authority, with interim applications inter alia invoking Rule 112(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; if so filed within eight weeks, the appellate authority must decide the appeals and interim applications in accordance with law, on their own merits and without adverting to limitation; all contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether Writ Petition (L) Nos.13718 of 2025 and 14118 of 2025, though not on board, could be taken up and disposed of along with Writ Petition No.1448 of 2025 and the connected petitions. +2 more

Court's answer

Writ Petition (L) Nos.13718 of 2025 and 14118 of 2025, though not on board, were taken on Board for disposal upon their mention and with consent.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners did not press the writ petitions; they were permitted to institute appeals within eight weeks from the date of uploading of the order to challenge the impugned orders before the appellate authority, and also intended to file interim applications, inter alia invoking Rule 112(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Key takeaways

If such appeals and interim applications are indeed filed within eight weeks of the uploading of the order, the appellate authority must dispose of them in accordance with law and on their own merits, without adverting to the issue of limitation.ratio¶6
The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the matters; all contentions of all parties are left open to be decided by the appellate authority in the first instance.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; order dated 10 June 2025) disposed of seven writ petitions — W.P. No.1448 of 2025 and W.P.(L) Nos.11211, 11229, 11237, 11243, 11251, 13718 and 14118 of 2025 — filed by Me Hin Tech Edge Solution, Ajay Mehta, Falguni Ajay Mehta and Samson Wilson against the Union of India. W.P.(L) Nos.13718 and 14118 of 2025, though not on board, were taken on Board upon mention with consent, counsel agreeing to their disposal in light of the order disposing of the other five petitions; Mr. Shah, Senior Advocate, submitted that the pre-deposit issue did not arise in those matters. The petitioners did not press the petitions but obtained liberty to institute appeals within eight weeks from the date of uploading of the order before the appellate authority, with interim applications inter alia invoking Rule 112(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. If filed within eight weeks, the appellate authority must dispose of the appeals and interim applications in accordance with law, on their own merits and without adverting to limitation. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and left all contentions open; no costs.

22-WP.1448.25 & ORS.DOCX

PPN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed PRACHI by PRACHIPRANESH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.06.11 15:13:15 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 1448 OF 2025

WRIT PETITION NO. 1448 OF 2025

Me Hin Tech Edge Solution … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11211 OF 2025 Me Hin Tech Edge Solution … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11229 OF 2025 Ajay Mehta … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11237 OF 2025 Falguni Ajay Mehta … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11243 OF 2025 Ajay Mehta … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11251 OF 2025 Me Hin Tech Edge Solution … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent

Page 1 of 3

22-WP.1448.25 & ORS.DOCX

WITH

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13718 OF 2025

Samson Wilson … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14118 OF 2025 Falguni Ajay Mehta & Anr. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

______________________________________________________ Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vipin Jain, Mr. Rishab Jain, Heema Doshi, Sanjana Jain i/by TLC Legl for Petitioner.

Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha i/by A. A. Ansari for respondent No.1.

CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 10 June 2025

PC. :-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Writ Petition (L) Nos.13718 of 2025 and 14118 of 2025 are not on board. However, upon their mention, and with consent, the same are also taken on Board for disposal.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that these two writ petitions can be disposed of in the light of the order made by us disposing of the Writ Petition No.1448 of 2025 and Writ Petition (L) Nos.11211 of 2025, 11229 of 2025, 11237 of

Page 2 of 3

22-WP.1448.25 & ORS.DOCX

2025, 11243 of 2025 and 11251 of 2025. However, Mr Shah submitted that the issue of pre-deposit for appeal does not arise in these matters.

Accordingly, the petitioners do not press these petitions but intend to institute an appeal within eight weeks from the date of uploading this order to challenge the orders impugned in these petitions before the appellate authority.

The petitioners also intend to file appropriate interim applications, inter alia, invoking the provisions of Rule 112(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, before the appellate authority.

Suppose such appeals and interim applications are indeed filed within 8 weeks of the uploading of this order. In such cases, the appellate authority must dispose of appeals and interim applications in accordance with the law and on their own merits, without adverting to the issue of limitation.

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matters and, therefore, all contentions of all parties are left open to be decided by the appellate authority in the first instance.

Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of with the above liberty and directions. No costs.

(Jitendra Jain, J)

(M.S. Sonak, J)

Page 3 of 3