Supreme Court refuses to transfer GST cases, allows parties to seek expeditious disposal from respective High Courts.

Case Name:

Union of India vs. M/s Cummins Technologies India Pvt Ltd. & Ors. Etc (GST SC Case)

Key Takeaways:

- The Supreme Court refused to entertain transfer petitions filed by the Union of India seeking transfer of GST cases from various High Courts.

- The court directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to dispose of the writ petition pending before it within two months.

- For other pending writ petitions across High Courts, the parties are allowed to bring this order to the notice of the concerned High Courts and seek expeditious disposal.

Issue:

Whether the transfer petitions filed by the Union of India under Article 139A read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, seeking transfer of two writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, are maintainable?

Facts:

- The Union of India filed transfer petitions seeking transfer of two writ petitions from the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh to the Supreme Court.

- The writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

- In addition to these two petitions, 34 other writ petitions challenging the same provision were pending across nine High Courts in the country.

- The Solicitor General argued that since the issue had implications on numerous matters and involved huge amounts payable under the Act, the Supreme Court should hear all the matters.

Arguments:

- The Union of India, represented by the Solicitor General and Additional Solicitor General, argued that the Supreme Court should hear all the matters related to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, as the issue had implications on numerous cases across the country and involved substantial financial implications.

- The respondents, represented by their counsel, opposed the transfer petitions, arguing that the High Courts were already seized of the matters, and in the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a counter-affidavit had already been filed.

Key Legal Precedents:

The judgment does not explicitly cite any legal precedents.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court declined to entertain the transfer petitions filed by the Union of India. The court observed that various High Courts were already seized of the matters, and in the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a counter-affidavit had already been filed.

The court directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, to dispose of the writ petition (No. 9443/2020) pending adjudication before it as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order.

For other writ petitions pending before various High Courts, the court allowed the parties to bring this order to the notice of the concerned High Courts and seek expeditious disposal of their cases.

The transfer petitions were disposed of with the above directions, and any pending applications were also disposed of.

FAQs:

Q1. What was the main issue in this case?

A1. The main issue was whether the Supreme Court should transfer the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, from various High Courts to itself.

Q2. Why did the Supreme Court refuse to transfer the cases?

A2. The Supreme Court refused to transfer the cases because various High Courts were already seized of the matters, and in the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a counter-affidavit had already been filed.

Q3. What direction did the Supreme Court give regarding the writ petition pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court?

A3. The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, to dispose of the writ petition (No. 9443/2020) pending adjudication before it as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order.

Q4. What was the Supreme Court's direction regarding other pending writ petitions across High Courts?

A4. For other writ petitions pending before various High Courts, the Supreme Court allowed the parties to bring this order to the notice of the concerned High Courts and seek expeditious disposal of their cases.

Q5. What was the significance of this case?

A5. This case highlighted the Supreme Court's approach to transfer petitions and its reluctance to interfere in cases already pending before High Courts, especially when counter-affidavits have been filed. It also emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of cases related to significant legal issues.

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, who is on caveat, and carefully perused the record.

These transfer petitions have been filed by the Union of India under Article 139A read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of two Writ Petitions to this Court, i.e., (i) Writ Petition No. 9443/2020 titled 'M/s. Cummins Technologies vs Union of India' pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore and (ii) Writ Petition No.7767 /2020 titled 'M/s. SPL Infrastructure Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Narasannapeta and Ors.' pending before the High Court of Andhra Prdesh at Amaravati. In both these Writ Petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been challenged.

In addition to the aforementioned two Writ Petitions, we are informed that the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act has been challenged in 34 other writ petitions, which are stated to be pending across nine High Courts in the country. According to learned Solicitor General, since the issue has implication on a number of matters pending across the country and also ramifications of huge amounts payable under the said Act, it would be appropriate if this Court hears all the matters. Even though learned Solicitor General insisted for transfer of cases pending before various High Courts to this Court, we are not inclined to entertain these transfer petitions, for the reason that various High Courts are already seized of the matters. In particular, in the matter before the High Court of M.P., Indore Bench, counter affidavit is already stated to have been filed.

In view of the above, we request the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench to dispose of the Writ Petition No.9443/2020, pending adjudication before it, as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months’ time from the date of communication of this Order.

Parties are at liberty to advance their respective arguments before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. So far as other Writ Petitions, which are pending before various High Courts, it is open for the parties to bring this Order to the notice of the concerned High Courts and seek expeditious

disposal of their cases.

The Transfer Petitions are disposed of in the afore­stated terms.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VISHAL ANAND) (R.S. NARAYANAN)

ASTT. REGISTRAR­cum ­PS COURT MASTER (NSH)