Facts of the Case

M. Devi Meena filed two connected writ petitions against the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai, and the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai. The first (WP(MD) No. 8808/2023) sought to quash an order dated 06.05.2020 and claimed back wages for the period 04.03.2014 to 27.02.2016; the second (WP(MD) No. 8809/2023) sought a direction to promote her to the post of Superintendent, notionally with effect from 28.03.2018, on par with others promoted vide an order dated 28.03.2018. Although the respondents are GST department officers, this is a service-law dispute between a department employee and her employer, not a GST law matter.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw both writ petitions with liberty to pursue her remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal instead.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Counsel for the petitioner submitted that she would withdraw both writ petitions with liberty to pursue her remedy before the (Central Administrative) Tribunal.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Represented by the Standing Counsel; no specific opposing contention on the withdrawal request is recorded.

Court Order / Findings

  • Granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw, expressly clarifying that the Court had not gone into the merits of either the back-wages claim or the promotion claim, and that all contentions of the petitioner were left open.
  • Dismissed both writ petitions as withdrawn, with no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Important Clarification

No decision was made on the merits of the petitioner's service-law grievances (back wages or promotion) — the Court expressly recorded that it had not gone into the merits, and this is not a GST-law ruling at all, despite the respondents being designated GST officers. The petitioner's substantive claims remain to be litigated before the Tribunal.

Sections Involved

  • Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — governs the Central Administrative Tribunal, the forum to which the petitioner was directed
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction, from which the petitioner withdrew

Decision – In Favour of

No decision on merits — both writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioner's request, with liberty to pursue her service-law claims before the Central Administrative Tribunal; this has no bearing on any GST-law question.

Case Details

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD) Nos. 8808 & 8809 of 2023 with W.M.P.(MD) No. 8054 of 2023; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan; Date of Order: 25.04.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.