2020 (12) TMI 744 - HC - GST

High Court admits writ petition due to absence of GST Tribunal, allowing judicial intervention

M/s Ganpati Road Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Praveen Kumar Jain Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Institutional Finance & Ors.

The High Court admitted the writ petition due to the absence of the GST Tribunal, allowing judicial intervention as the petitioner was unable to appeal to ... Maintainability of petition - appealable order - instant petition is filed as there was no GST Tribunal constituted till date - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that GST Tribunal has not been established till date and the petitioner has deposited the requisite court fee as required under Section 112 of the The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the writ petition is admitted. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file objections and reply to the objections may be filed within one week thereafter - List thereafter. Issues involved:1. Appealability of order under Section 112 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in absence of GST Tribunal establishment.2. Admissibility of writ petition due to non-establishment of GST Tribunal.3. Requirement of mandatory court fee under Section 112 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:1. The petitioner contended that the order dated 28.9.2020 by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable under Section 112 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, due to the absence of the GST Tribunal establishment, the petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition. It was emphasized that the mandatory court fee, as stipulated by Section 112 of the Act, had already been paid, substantiated by an affidavit and payment receipt on record.2. The High Court, after considering the non-existence of the GST Tribunal and the petitioner's compliance with the required court fee under Section 112 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, admitted the writ petition. This decision indicates the Court's recognition of the petitioner's inability to appeal to the designated tribunal due to its non-establishment, thereby allowing for judicial intervention through the writ petition.3. Furthermore, the respondents were granted four weeks to present objections, with an additional week for the petitioner to reply to these objections. During this period, subject to meeting the condition of depositing security, other than cash or bank guarantee, equal to the tax and penalty value, the goods of the petitioner, including the Truck with registration no. UP33AT5725, were ordered to be released immediately. This requirement ensures the protection of the revenue's interest while facilitating the release of the petitioner's goods pending the resolution of the legal proceedings.