9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1179 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal or not - Tribunal has not yet been constituted and/or is not functional - HELD THAT - he preamble to the impugned order dated 25 th March, 2019 itself provides that an appeal against it would lie under Section 112(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 to the Tribunal, constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is an agreed position between the parties that no Tribunal under Section 109 of the CGST Act is constituted/ functioning. Thus, the Petitioner is remediless. The Petitioner s fear is that the Revenue may adopt coercive proceedings to recover its dues under the impugned order dated 25th March, 2019. We adjourn this Petition by a period of three months. This in the hope that in the meantime, the Tribunal under Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017 would be constituted/ be functional to enable the person aggrieved by orders passed by the Appellate Authorities under the CGST Act to file appeals. Respondents are restrained from adopting any coercive steps consequent to the impugned order dated 25th March, 2019.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to order under CGST Act due to non-constitution of functional Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Bombay dealt with a petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner was unable to exercise the alternative remedy of an appeal before the Goods & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as it was not yet constituted or functional. The order itself provided for an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 112(1) of the CGST Act, but since no Tribunal was constituted or functioning under Section 109 of the CGST Act, the petitioner was left with no recourse. The fear was that the Revenue might resort to coercive measures to recover dues under the impugned order. The High Court acknowledged the lack of functionality of the Tribunal and adjourned the petition for three months in the hope that the Tribunal would be constituted or become functional during this period. The respondents were restrained from taking any coercive steps in the meantime. The purpose of the adjournment was to allow individuals aggrieved by orders under the CGST Act to have a forum to file appeals. The court scheduled the next hearing for January 16, 2020. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of having a functional appellate tribunal under the CGST Act to provide an effective remedy to aggrieved parties. The court's decision to adjourn the matter reflected a pragmatic approach to allow for the establishment of the necessary tribunal to address grievances and ensure due process under the law.
|
