Writ petition allowed as GST Appellate Tribunal not constituted, leaving assessee with no appeal remedy.

Case Name:

M/s. Varun Beverages Ltd. Vs. State Of U.P.

Court No. 39

Case: Writ Tax No. 1666 of 2018

Key Takeaways:

- The case highlights the importance of constituting the GST Appellate Tribunal to provide a statutory appeal remedy to aggrieved parties.

- In the absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the Appellate Authority.

- The judgment underscores the need for a robust appellate mechanism to ensure fair adjudication of disputes under the GST regime.

Issue:

Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is maintainable in the absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Act.

Facts:

The petitioner, M/s. Varun Beverages Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 03.11.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) of the U.P. GST Act. The petitioner submitted that although a remedy of appeal under Section 112 before the Appellate Tribunal was available, no such Tribunal had been constituted yet. Therefore, the petitioner had no other remedy except to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had not been constituted, the petitioner had no other remedy except to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of the First Appellate Authority.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondents did not deny the fact that the Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted.

Key Legal Precedents:

The judgment does not explicitly cite any legal precedents. However, it relies on the provisions of Sections 107(4) and 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Judgement:

The High Court entertained the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The court directed the learned counsel for the respondents to file a counter-affidavit within a month and listed the matter for further hearing on 13.02.2019. By admitting the writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner to challenge the order of the First Appellate Authority directly before the High Court in the absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

FAQs:

Q1. What is the significance of this case?

A1. This case highlights the importance of constituting the GST Appellate Tribunal to provide a statutory appeal remedy to aggrieved parties. In the absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the Appellate Authority.

Q2. What was the legal reasoning behind the High Court’s decision?

A2. The High Court admitted the writ petition based on the fact that the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had not been constituted. Since the petitioner had no other statutory appeal remedy available, the High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the challenge against the order of the First Appellate Authority.

Q3. What are the implications of this case for GST disputes?

A3. This case underscores the need for a robust appellate mechanism to ensure fair adjudication of disputes under the GST regime. It also highlights the importance of constituting the GST Appellate Tribunal in a timely manner to provide a statutory appeal remedy to aggrieved parties, as envisaged under the GST laws.

Q4. Can the High Court’s decision be appealed further?

A4. The judgment does not provide specific information about the possibility of further appeals. However, based on the general principles of law, the parties may have the option to appeal the High Court’s final decision to the Supreme Court, subject to the applicable legal provisions and procedures.

Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 03.11.2018 passed by the respondent no.2-Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) of the U.P. GST Act.

The submission of the petitioner is that there is a remedy of appeal under Section 112 before the Appellate Tribunal but because the Tribunal itself has not been constituted, he has no remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226.

This fact has not been denied by the learned Standing Counsel. We therefore entertained this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents may file counter affidavit within a month.

List on 13.02.2019.

Order Date :- 11.1.2019