2020 (2) TMI 517 - HC - GST

Constitutional validity of the 3rd proviso to Rule 138(1) and Rule 138(5) read with Section 129 of the CGST Act - tax demand and imposition of penalty for the discrepancy/invalidity of E-way during movement for job work - HELD THAT - We are inclined to issue notice to the respondents with a view to resolve the controversy as highlighted. Let Notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 12.02.2020.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to constitutional validity of the 3rd proviso to Rule 138(1) and Rule 138(5) read with Section 129 of the CGST Act, issuance of notice to the respondents for resolving highlighted controversy, clarification on pendency of the Writ-application not affecting appeal process, and urging the appellant authority to decide the appeal promptly.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Constitutional Validity: The writ-applicant sought various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of the 3rd proviso to Rule 138(1) and Rule 138(5) along with Section 129 of the CGST Act. However, the court expressed its reluctance to address this challenge at the present moment, indicating a potential future consideration of this aspect.

2. Issuance of Notice to Respondents: The court decided to issue notice to the respondents in order to address and resolve the highlighted controversy presented by the writ-applicant. The notice was made returnable on a specific date, demonstrating the court's intention to engage with the concerned parties and facilitate a resolution of the issues raised in the writ-application.

3. Clarification on Pendency of Writ-Application: While progressing with the case, the court provided a crucial clarification that the pendency of the Writ-application should not obstruct the appellant authority from adjudicating the appeal filed by the writ-applicant against a particular order. This clarification aimed to ensure that the appeal process remains unaffected by the ongoing writ proceedings.

4. Urging Prompt Adjudication of Appeal: The court expressed a clear expectation for the appellant authority to promptly handle the appeal filed by the writ-applicant and reach a decision in accordance with the law. This directive emphasized the importance of expeditiously resolving the appeal to ensure timely justice for the parties involved and maintain procedural efficiency.

In conclusion, the judgment reflects a structured approach by the court in addressing the various issues raised by the writ-applicant, including the challenge to constitutional validity, issuance of notice to respondents, clarification on pendency, and urging prompt adjudication of the appeal. The court's decisions and directives outlined in the judgment aim to streamline the legal process, facilitate resolution of disputes, and ensure procedural fairness in the adjudication of the case.