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

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 the designated tribunal. The petitioner had paid the mandatory court fee under Section 112 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court granted respondents four weeks to present objections, with an additional week for the petitioner to reply. The petitioner's goods, including a Truck, were ordered to be released immediately upon depositing security equal to the tax and penalty value, ensuring revenue protection while facilitating the release of goods during legal proceedings.

---

---

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.

---