No More Delay Please

[K Balasubramanian]

1. Introduction: This article is on the abnormal delay that is happening in making functional of the website of GSTAT. The Supreme Court on 13/12/2024 in the case of TEAM COMPUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2024 (12) TMI 875 - SC ORDER vide para 6 of the order ruled that we would like to first know at the earliest why the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has not been made functional till date. There are no developments in this case till 20/03/2025, when the petition was called for hearing. No significant developments even after three months  as the order only states that counsel for petitioner is granted two weeks’ time to provide spare copy for service upon respondent. I am only requesting the appropriate authorities to make the website of the GSTAT functional without any further delay, as it is not opening even as on today.

2. HIGH COURTS: All over India, so many writ petitions are being filed on all the working days only to seek re-adjudication as the concept of NATURAL JUSTICE was grossly ignored while passing the adjudication orders. While we examine few such cases in this article, the purpose of this article is only to request the authorities to expedite the functioning of the official website of GSTAT.

3. PROPER OFFICERS: The proper officer, while adjudicating a show cause notice must follow the principles of Natural Justice as his role is that of QUASI JUDICIAL. It is not in just one or two cases that the NATURAL JUSTICE is violated but orders on this violation of Natural Justice are passed by almost all the High Courts in India on a day in day out basis which is a cause of REAL CONCERN. At least for the sake of reducing such writs being filed under violation of natural justice category, CBIC may kindly come forward in instructing the field formation in an appropriate manner.

4. WEBSITE: The process of setting up of various benches are under progress and I am not on that issue now. Cases which are necessarily to be filed in GSTAT are piling up for the past seven years and by officially making the website of GSTAT functional as quickly as possible, it would facilitate the petitioners who are  waiting for filing the appeal in GSTAT. Functioning of GSTAT as well as functioning of the website of GSTAT need not be a simultaneous one as the connected activities are not dependent on the other.

5. REITERATION: The purpose of this second article within five weeks from the first one on GSTAT IS THE NEED OF THE HOUR on 21/02/2025 is to reiterate on abnormal filing of writs in almost all Jurisdictional High Courts in India which are happening only because the GSTAT is not in place.  Any substantial reduction on such writs which are not required when GSTAT is functional would improve the clearance of pending cases at various High Courts.

6. High Court of Bombay: The High Court on 01/04/2024 in the case of FINO PAYTECH LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR. - 2024 (4) TMI 284 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT  has held that as the petitioner has changed the address of their business which is within the knowledge of the proper officer, SCN was sent to old address and adjudication order was passed ex parte without adhering the principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the adjudication order and directed the proper officer to re adjudicate after considering the reply and after providing opportunity of hearing.

7. High Court of Delhi: The High Court ruled on 03/09/2024 in the case of M/S. S.M. TRADING CO. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, MANDOLI DIVISION, EAST DELHI. - 2024 (9) TMI 443 - DELHI HIGH COURT that as registration was cancelled without any specific reasons in the Show Cause Notice, the order cancelling the registration to be set aside and registration to be restored.

8. Gujarat High Court: In an interesting case, the order was set aside due to violation of Section 75(4). In this case, there was difference between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3. This happened due to petitioner showing turnover twice in GSTR 1 while accepting the advance as well as at the time of actual supply. However GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 were in order and this fact was well demonstrated. Despite the facts, Proper Officer passed orders without providing opportunity of hearing. The High Court set aside the order of the proper officer with directions for re adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing. Citation  SHREEJI DEVELOPERS & ANR., SUBHASH ASHVINBHAI SHAH, PARTNER VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE TAX OFFICER. - 2025 (3) TMI 543 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT.

9. Madras High Court: In yet another case, the opportunity of personal hearing was not granted despite the petitioner seeking the same in writing. The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commercial Steels Limited 2021(9) TMI 480 and held that the order passed by the respondent is set aside and matter remanded to the original Assessing Officer with directions to grant personal hearing.

10. Allahabad High Court: The High Court ruled on 06/03/2025 that the respondent passed the orders without considering the reply to show cause notice and also no personal hearing was granted. Under these circumstances, the High Court set aside the adjudication order with directions to respondent to re adjudicate the case after granting personal hearing  Citation REGENCY HOSPITAL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS - 2025 (3) TMI 553 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.

11. Section 74: In another case, the SCN was issued under section 74 but there were no allegation on suppression or misstatement or fraud and as the SCN was not in line with the Section 74, the order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court with liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Citation: M/S AJNARA REALTECH LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS - 2025 (3) TMI 1029 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.

12. The need: The above six cases are only illustrative in nature. There are several decisions being dictated by various High Courts in our country on Sub section 4 of Section 73 alone. It is high time that this requires to be addressed as neither the GST Department nor the taxpayer is going to gain on any such orders which are legally not tenable. By passing such orders,  professionals dealing in such cases are the only beneficiary at the loss of the taxpayer. The requirements are two. The Adjudication orders must pass the required tests so as to ensure that it is not a frivolous one. There should not be any more delay in making the website of GSTAT functional.

13. Conclusion: Let us hope positively that GSTAT will find the light of the day at least by September 2025 as even the Supreme Court of India has expressed the concern on the delay in setting up of the GSTAT.