Court directs revenue to file steps taken for GST appellate tribunal formation, grants interim relief to assessee.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

M/s. Jai Baba Amarnath Industries Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others (High Court of Allahabad)

Writ Tax No. 942 of 2018

Date: 13th November 2019

Key Takeaways:

- The court highlighted the delay in constituting the GSTAT for Uttar Pradesh, despite its earlier instructions.

- The revenue authorities were directed to file an affidavit explaining the steps taken for the tribunal’s formation.

- The assessee was granted interim relief by ordering the release of their seized goods and vehicle, subject to a bank guarantee.

- The case underscores the court’s proactive approach in ensuring the establishment of the GST appellate mechanism.

Issue:

Whether the revenue authorities have taken appropriate steps to constitute the GSTAT for the state of Uttar Pradesh, as per the court’s earlier instructions.

Facts:

The assessee’s goods were seized during transit on the grounds of not being accompanied by an e-way bill. The first appellate authority upheld the seizure order. The assessee contended that the GSTAT had not been constituted to address their grievance, even after a year of the GST’s introduction. The High Court had previously issued instructions regarding the constitution of the GSTAT.

Arguments:

The assessee argued that the GSTAT had not been constituted, preventing them from appealing the seizure order.

The revenue authorities, represented by counsel Sri Krishna Ji Shukla, submitted that certain directions in a previous court order had created difficulties in providing the state and area benches of the GSTAT for Uttar Pradesh.

Key Legal Precedents:

The court did not cite any specific legal precedents verbatim in the summary provided.

Judgement:

The court did not make a final decision on the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the revenue authorities, represented by the Union of India, to file an affidavit from an authorized and responsible officer detailing the steps taken or proposed for the constitution of the GSTAT for Uttar Pradesh. The court granted the revenue authorities three weeks to file the affidavit.

Additionally, the court granted interim relief to the assessee by directing the revenue authorities to release the seized goods and vehicle, subject to the assessee furnishing a bank guarantee.

FAQs:

Q1: What was the main issue in this case?

A1: The main issue was the delay in constituting the GSTAT for Uttar Pradesh, which prevented the assessee from appealing the seizure order.

Q2: What did the court order the revenue authorities to do?

A2: The court ordered the revenue authorities to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken or proposed for the constitution of the GSTAT for Uttar Pradesh.

Q3: What interim relief did the court grant to the assessee?

A3: The court directed the revenue authorities to release the seized goods and vehicle of the assessee, subject to the assessee furnishing a bank guarantee.

Q4: Did the court make a final decision on the merits of the case?

A4: No, the court did not make a final decision on the merits of the case. It only issued interim directions regarding the constitution of the GSTAT and the release of the assessee’s seized goods and vehicle.

Q5: What is the significance of this case?

A5: This case highlights the court’s proactive approach in ensuring the establishment of the GST appellate mechanism and granting interim relief to the assessee in the absence of a functional appellate tribunal.

1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, Sri Naveen Chandra Gupta, Sri Praveen Kumar, Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, Sri Shubham Agrawal and Sri Murari Mohan Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Ji Shukla, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, Sri Devendra Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. Sri Krishna Ji Shukla, learned counsel for the Union of India has placed on record written instructions received by him from the Under Secretary, Government of India, disclosing that the Union has been advised to file a

special leave petition against the order of this Court, sitting at Lucknow, in Writ Petition (Tax) No.655 of 2018 (M/S Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & 5 Others) and PIL Civil No.6800 of 2019 (Oudh Bar Asso. High Court, Lko. Thru General Secretary & Anr Vs. U.O.I. Thru Secy. Ministry of Finance & Ors) dated 31.05.2019. It has been orally submitted that on

account of the certain directions contained in the order dated 31.05.2019, the Union and or the GST Council is facing some difficulty in providing the State and the Area Benches of the Tribunal, for the State of Uttar Pradesh. At present, a certified copy of the order of this Court dated 31.05.2019 stated to have been applied for.

3. Those instructions apart, by the last order dated 16.10.2019, it had been observed as under:-

"5. However, keeping in mind that the matter is engaging the attention of the Division Bench as also in view of the assurance given by Sri Shukla that the matter would be resolved by the appropriate authorities at the earliest, as prayed three weeks' time is granted to him to obtain instructions and file a proper affidavit, if necessary, to bring on record the further action taken for constitution of appropriate Benches of GSTAT for the State of Uttar Pradesh."

4. No compliance has been made of the same.

5. Sri Shukla prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an affidavit of the authorized and responsible officer of the Union of India with respect to matters noted in the orders dated 18.09.2019 and 16.10.2019.

6. List again on 11.12.2019, on which date, it is expected that the necessary affidavit disclosing the steps taken and or proposed by the Union and or the GST Council with respect to Constitution of the Tribunal for the State of Uttar Pradesh and the manner in which it is being dealt with, would be brought on record.

Order Date : 13.11.2019

S.Chaurasia