9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y clear that the aforesaid Proposal has been made after due application of mind and taking into consideration necessary factors relating to the filing of appeal and their disposal by the various Benches of the VAT Tribunal prior to coming of the GST Tribunal. 5. It has also been stated in the said proposal that the earlier Tribunal was also functioning with its Head Quarter at Lucknow and, therefore considering all the relevant factors, the State Government had requested the GST Council that the State Bench for the State of Uttar Pradesh should be constituted at Lucknow and further recommended constitution of 20 Area Benches in 16 Cities as mentioned therein. 6. It seems that the matter remained pending with the GST Council and no decision was taken for formation of State Bench in the State of Uttar Pradesh and in the meanwhile a Writ Petition came to be filed before this Court at Allahabad in the case of M/s Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and 5 Others , being Civil Writ Petition (Tax) No. 655 of 2018. 7. The Challenge in aforesaid writ petition was the order passed in the appeal of the petitioner which had been dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation by this Court. Learned Special Counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 6 may file counter affidavit within a month. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within ten days thereafter. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. Till further order of this Court, the penalty amount shall not be realised from the petitioner. 10. The State Government filed counter affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition on 19th June, 2018, but in paragraph no. 23 of the said counter affidavit it did not reply to the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 22 to 26 of the writ petition. 11. When the matter was next listed on 13.02.2019, this Court passed following order :- Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. In this matter learned counsel for the G.S.T. Council is unable to tell as to whether the Tribunal is constituted or not. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State is also unable to tell as to whether the State has moved in the matter or not. List this matter on 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Allahabad. This seems to be another dilatory tactics. On the one hand the right of appeal is not being given to the petitioner, on the other hand the State and the Centre are both very quick to make recoveries from persons, who have orders against them. A litigant cannot be left without a remedy for reasons that the Government is unable to provide forums. In the present case there is not even an assurance that within next six months, one year or two years it may come up. In view of this, we direct both the Centre and the State Governments to file better affidavits giving us a cut off date by which they propose to set up the Tribunal. Learned Standing Counsel also states today that they are likely to give a revised proposal. They may do so within next two weeks. List this matter after two weeks on 15th March, 2019. The personal appearance of two Officers, who are present today is exempted unless directed by this Court. Copy of this order be given to Sri Gyan Prakash, A.S.G.I as well as Sri Nimai Dass, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for necessary communication and comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Bench of the High Court is at Allahabad, the High Court has directed that proposal is to be sent within a period of two weeks and, therefore in the light of the said direction, revised proposal has been forwarded for constitution of the State bench at Allahabad. 20. Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Section 109 of the CGST Act, there is a provision for constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal, which shall be constituted by the Government on the recommendation of the GST Council. In Clause-4 of the Section 109 it has also been provided that the Government shall, on the recommendation of the Council, by notification, constitute such number of Regional Benches as may be required and such Regional Benches shall consist of one Judicial Member, one Technical Members (Center) and one Technical Member (State). 21. It has been submitted that the State Government after taking into account all the factors made its recommendations in accordance with Section 109 of the GST Act for constitution of the GST Tribunal (State Bench) at Lucknow, by means of its letter dated 21.02.2019. 22. It has also been vehe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench and Circuit Benches of the Tribunal is not to be the subject matter of consideration by the judicial forum unless facts of the case are so appalling that judicial interference would be called for. The present, in our considered view is not such a case. We therefore, allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court with direction to the appellant/Union of India to take necessary steps to ensure that the cases pertaining to the State of Uttranchal pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal are heard and disposed of by the Circuit Bench as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid observations the appeal is allowed. 27. Sri Tripathi, has submitted that according to Section 109 of the CGST Act, the decision as to where the Benches of Tribunal have to be constituted is a matter, which purely falls within the domain of the Government, and it is the Government which shall take a decision after considering all the relevant facts and material, and unless there are some extraordinary circumstances, the High Court is denuded of its power from interfering in such matters. It has further been submitted that no such extraor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad and seats of High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow can be changed according to the United Provinces (High Courts) Amalgamation Order, 1948 and further submitted that there are two seats of High Court of equal status. The seat of the High Court at Allahabad is just like another seat of High Court at Lucknow. It is erroneous view that the seat of High Court at Allahabad is principal or permanent seat of the High Court. 31. He also submits that the Apex Court in the case of Madras Bar Association (supra) also did not consider or hold that the principal Bench of the Tribunal should be constituted at the place where principal Bench of the High Court is situated. The said observations made by the Division Bench at Allahabad were also not in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court and to that extent are factually incorrect. 32. It was further argued that the decisions in the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar (supra) and Madras Bar Association (supra) , provide that alternative Court/Tribunal shall be established; at every place where there is seat of the High Court and as, in view of the dictum of the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted a proposal vide letter dated 21.02.2019 to the Finance Secretary and Secretary, GST Council, Government of India, New Delhi for establishing State Bench at Lucknow and Area Benches at twenty other cities. Subsequently, in the light of order dated 28.02.2019, passed in Writ Tax No. 655 of 2018 - M/s Torque Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. , the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow wrote a letter dated 01.03.2019 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Trade Tax, U.P. for sending amended proposal for constitution of State Bench of Tribunal at Allahabad. In view of the order dated 28.02.2019, passed in Writ Tax No. 655 of 2018, the amended proposal was sent vide letter dated 15.03.2019, by the Additional Chief Secretary, Institutional Finance, Tax and Registration, Government of U.P. to the Finance Secretary and Secretary, GST Council, Government of India for establishing State Bench at Prayagraj (Allahabad) and Area Benches in four other Cities. 35. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the mandate incorporated in Section 5(2) of the NTT Act to the effect that the sittings of the NTT would ordinarily be conducted in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, would render the remedy inefficacious, and thus unacceptable in law. The instant aspect of the matter was considered by this Court with reference to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in S.P. Sampath Kumar case (supra) and L. Chandra Kumar case (supra), wherein it was held, that permanent benches needed to be established at the seat of every jurisdictional High Court. And if that was not possible, at least a circuit bench required to be established at every place where an aggrieved party could avail of his remedy. The position on the above issue, is no different in the present controversy. For the above reason, Section 5(2) of the NTT Act is in clear breach of the law declared by this Court. 38. On the issue of providing a convenient and expedient redress before the alternative court/tribunal, the Apex Court in Madras Bar Association (supra) followed S.P. Sampath Kumar (supra) . In S.P. Sampath Kumar (supra) the Apex Court in para 8, held as fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w High Court ) . 41. Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948, makes it clear that the Judges of the High Court shall sit at Allahabad or such other places as the Chief Justice may appoint with the approval of the Governor. It further provides that not less than two judges be nominated, by the Chief Justice to sit at Lucknow in order to exercise jurisdiction and power in respect of cases arising in the area of Oudh territory. Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 is reproduced here in below :- The new High Court, and the Judges and division Courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint: Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice otherwise directs, such judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such area in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct, the Jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construed in their ordinary sense. The mere fact that the results of a statute may be unjust does not entitle a court to refuse to give it effect. If there are two different interpretations of the words in an Act, the Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things. If the inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by reading an enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in which it is capable, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all; there would be reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical meaning. Where the words are plain the Court would not make any alteration. 27. The arguments which were presented at the Bar on behalf of the Bar Association at Allahabad as well as the Bar Association at Lucknow suggested that those views can be described to be protagonists of Allahabad or of Lucknow on the one hand and antagonists to Allahabad or Lucknow on the other. The construction is to be dispassionate with out any leaning either in favour or against either of the places mentioned in the Order. 28. The Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns are as follows. First, there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the Order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order to direct in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word heard confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad instead of Lucknow is wrong. The word heard means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order be directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression cause of action wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition No. 655 (Tax) of 2018 as it is not borne out from the decision in Madras Bar Association (supra) can at best be treated as a tentative observations especially as the proposal of the Government dated 21.02.2019 was not under challenge in the said petition and was not directly and substantively in issue and also as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Bar Association (supra) does not refer to the Principal Seat but Seat of the High Court which in this case is at Lucknow as well as Allahabad and also as this Court while passing the order dated 28.02.2019 did not notice the binding decision of the Supreme Court on this issue in the case of Nasiruddin (supra) . Therefore for this reason also the observations are at best obiter and not binding. 46. All the learned Counsels appearing before this Court in the present matter were asked to point out any such observation made in the Madras Bar Association (supra) as is referred in order dated 28.02.2019, all the Counsels unanimously submitted that they had all carefully perused the aforesaid judgment but no such observation or finding has been recorded therein. We have also perused the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, the purport and import of which has already been elaborately dealt with hereinabove, cannot be sustained. 50. 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. 51. In view of the above discussion, 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'. 52. We wish to record appreciation to the learned Counsels Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Anupam Mehrotra, Advocate, Sri Dhruv Mathur, Advocate who have appeared before this Court on our request and rendered their valuable assistance. 52. It has also been informed at the Bar that various Tribunals and Forum are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
