9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 103 - HC - GSTConstitution of the GST Tribunal in UP - headquarter at Praygraj OR Lucknow - direction to the respondents to constitute/establish the GST Tribunal at Lucknow and further to issue necessary notifications in this regard - HELD THAT - In sum and substance, it was admitted that initially the State Government had proposed to set up the State Bench at Lucknow with area Benches elsewhere including at Allahabad but after the order of the High Court dated 28.02.2019, a fresh proposal was sent for constitution of State Bench of the GST Tribunal at Praygraj (Allahabad) - We are required to judge the validity of the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019. Where is the Seat of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is there one or more than one Seat? - HELD THAT - There are two Seats of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, one at Lucknow and the other at Allahabad, none of which is permanent. From the perusal of the letter of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, it is clear that there is no other material which could have created an occasion to re-consider/review its earlier proposal dated 21.02.2019 for constitution of the Bench of the Tribunal at Lucknow, and area Benches at other places including Allahabad except the order passed by the Division Bench of this court at Allahabad on 28.02.2019. The basis for the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 is a misreading and misconstruction of the observations made in the case of Madras Bar Association 2014 (9) TMI 821 - SUPREME COURT and also misunderstanding as to the existence of two Seats of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in view of the binding decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin 1975 (8) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT , following the observations made in the earlier order of this Court dated 28.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 655 (Tax) of 2018, therefore, the said revised proposal is not sustainable on facts and in Law. In the present case, the legislation, namely, GST Act, 2017 has been enacted and has come into force with effect from 01.07.2017. Under the said enactment, various authorities have to be set up, namely, GST Council, and the GST Council was authorised to make recommendations to the Government for constitution of the regional Benches and State Benches - the amended proposal dated 15.03.2019 sent by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax is quashed. Consequently the earlier proposal dated 21.02.2019, which was a reasoned and considered one, shall be acted upon and GST Benches shall be constituted accordingly, expeditiously, say within three months'. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 for constituting the GST Tribunal at Prayagraj. 2. Legality of the original proposal dated 21.02.2019 for constituting the GST Tribunal at Lucknow. 3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in the Madras Bar Association case regarding the location of tribunals. 4. Jurisdictional authority of the High Court regarding the establishment of tribunal benches. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Revised Proposal Dated 15.03.2019: The revised proposal dated 15.03.2019, which suggested constituting the GST Tribunal at Prayagraj instead of Lucknow, was primarily based on the interim order of the High Court dated 28.02.2019. The court noted that the revised proposal was a misreading and misconstruction of the observations made in the case of Madras Bar Association and a misunderstanding of the existence of two seats of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The court concluded that the revised proposal was not sustainable on facts and in law. 2. Legality of the Original Proposal Dated 21.02.2019: The original proposal dated 21.02.2019, which recommended constituting the GST Tribunal at Lucknow, was a reasoned and considered decision by the State Government. It took into account all relevant factors, including the previous functioning of the Tribunal with its headquarters at Lucknow and the location of government machinery related to tax collection. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify revisiting this proposal and deemed it valid. 3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's Decision in the Madras Bar Association Case: The court examined whether the Supreme Court's decision in the Madras Bar Association case mandated that tribunals should be established at the 'principal seat' of the jurisdictional High Court. The court found that the Supreme Court's decision did not use the term "Principal Seat" but referred to the "Seat of the High Court." The decision emphasized that tribunals should be established at every place where there is a seat of the High Court, ensuring convenience and expediency for litigants. 4. Jurisdictional Authority of the High Court: The court highlighted that the issue of where to establish tribunal benches falls within the domain of the Executive as per Section 109 of the CGST Act and is not ordinarily justiciable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Lalit Kumar, which stated that setting up permanent and circuit benches of a tribunal should not be the subject of judicial consideration unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The court found no such extraordinary circumstances in this case. Conclusion: The court quashed the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 and directed that the original proposal dated 21.02.2019 should be acted upon. The GST Benches should be constituted accordingly within three months. The court also directed the Chief Secretary of the State to ensure that vacant posts in various tribunals and forums are filled within twelve weeks to prevent further prejudice and difficulties for litigants.
|
