GST appellate remedy remains protected despite non-constitution of Tribunal, with interim circular safeguarding recovery until appeals can be filed.
Where the statutory GST Appellate Tribunal was not yet constituted, the High Court accepted that the State circular provided an interim mechanism by extending the operative period for filing appeals from the date the Tribunal's President or State President assumed office and by protecting recovery on filing the prescribed declaration. As the petitioners had filed, or were allowed shortly to file, that declaration, the Court held there was no useful purpose in keeping the writ petitions pending. The petitions were disposed of, while the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy once the Tribunal became functional and their other substantive challenges were kept open.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging orders passed by the first appellate authority needed to be kept pending because the GST Appellate Tribunal was not yet constituted, and whether the circular issued by the State Tax authorities provided an adequate interim mechanism for filing appeals and protecting recovery.
Analysis: The petitions arose in the context of statutory appeals lying to the Appellate Tribunal under the State GST law, though the Tribunal had not yet been constituted. The State authorities had issued a circular clarifying that the time for filing an appeal or application to the Tribunal would run from the date the President or State President assumed office, and that if the taxpayer filed the prescribed declaration, recovery would remain protected until the appeal period became operative. The Court noted that this arrangement removed immediate prejudice to taxpayers similarly situated to the petitioners. It also recorded that the petitioners had already filed the declaration, or were permitted to do so within a short period, and that their other challenges were left open.
Conclusion: The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petitions pending and disposed of them, leaving the parties to avail the statutory remedy when the Tribunal becomes functional.
Final Conclusion: The petitions were brought to an end on the basis that the interim administrative mechanism under the circular protected the petitioners' position until the tribunal-based remedy became available, while all substantive challenges remained open.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory appellate tribunal is not constituted, but the governing circular extends the operative filing period and affords protection against recovery on filing of the prescribed declaration, the writ court need not keep the matter pending merely because the tribunal is not yet functional.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
