Key Court Decisions Impacting GST Tribunal Members & Administration

The Court restrained the appointment of Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) members until the next date, later extending the interim order. The Madras High Court invalidated certain provisions of the GST Act, suggesting amendments to include Lawyers as Judicial Members in GSTAT. The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Rojer Mathew case addressed rationalizing Tribunal administration, conditions of service, and the need for a Single Nodal Agency for Tribunals. The Supreme Court's decision on Tribunal administration would impact the challenge against CGST Act provisions, mandating compliance by the respondents, who were directed to consider amendments based on the Supreme Court's decision.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Section 109 and 110 of CGST and DGST Acts, Appointment of members to the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Constitutional validity of provisions regarding Tribunal members, Compliance with Supreme Court decisions on Tribunal administration.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the legality of Section 109 of CGST and DGST Acts and sought direction to halt the appointment of GSTAT members until alignment with established principles for ensuring Rule of Law and separation of powers.
2. The Court restrained the appointment of GSTAT members until the next date and later extended the interim order till the disposal of the writ petition.
3. The Madras High Court invalidated certain provisions of the GST Act, suggesting amendments to include Lawyers as Judicial Members in GSTAT for uniformity in statutes.
4. The Government planned to challenge the Madras High Court's decision in the Supreme Court.
5. The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Rojer Mathew case addressed rationalizing Tribunal administration, conditions of service, and the issue of pending appeals before the Supreme Court.
6. The Supreme Court identified various issues, including the constitutionality of the Finance Act, excessive delegation, and the need for a Single Nodal Agency for Tribunals.
7. The first issue was referred to a Larger Bench, and other issues were resolved by the Supreme Court.
8. The Supreme Court's decision on Tribunal administration would impact the challenge against CGST Act provisions, mandating compliance by the respondents.
9. The Court directed the respondents to consider amendments in the CGST Act based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rojer Mathew case.
10. The petitioner highlighted flaws in Sections 109 and 110 of CGST and DGST Acts, emphasizing issues related to the composition and qualifications of GSTAT members.
11. The petitioner pointed out discrepancies in the 2019 rules for GSTAT members' appointment, urging alignment with the Supreme Court's decision.
12. The respondents were instructed to consider the highlighted issues while examining the situation.
13. The respondents were directed to submit a status report after due consideration of the highlighted aspects.
14. The next hearing was scheduled for 05.02.2020, continuing from the present proceedings.

---