GST petitioner must pursue appeal remedy under Section 109 before challenging order in writ jurisdiction

Bombay HC disposed of a petition challenging a GST order, ruling that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available through appeal to the Principal Bench. The court noted that while a State Bench was notified at Goa, its members were not yet appointed. The HC held that the petitioner could approach the functioning Principal Bench for redress, with the option to transfer the appeal to the State Bench once members are appointed. The petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 109 of the Central Act.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the constitution of State Benches of goods and services Appellate Tribunal, the right to file appeal protected by the order of 2019, the operational status of the State Bench at Goa, and the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench in relation to the place of supply.

Constitution of State Benches:
The judgment discusses the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance regarding the constitution of State Benches of goods and services Appellate Tribunal in various states. It mentions the number of benches constituted in different states and the locations where they are established. The judgment highlights the importance of appointing members to the State Benches as per the provisions of Section 109 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Right to File Appeal and Operational Status of State Bench at Goa:
The judgment addresses the issue of the right to file an appeal and the operational status of the State Bench at Goa. It notes that even though the State Bench is notified, the members are yet to be appointed, rendering it non-operational. The petitioner's counsel argues that the appeal should be entertained due to the non-functioning of the State Bench, emphasizing the opportunity lost if the appeal is directed to the Principal Bench.

Jurisdiction of Principal Bench:
The judgment delves into the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench in relation to the place of supply as defined under Section 2(86) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It discusses the criteria for entertaining appeals before the Principal Bench, specifically in cases not related to the integrated Goods and Service Tax Act. The judgment suggests that if the State Bench is not operational, the petitioner may approach the Principal Bench for redressal of grievances.

Disposal of the Petition:
The judgment concludes by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority constituted under section 109 of the Central Act. It states that if the members of the State Bench are not appointed, the appeal could be entertained by the Principal Bench. The petitioner is given four weeks to file an appeal along with an application for delay, with the Principal Bench instructed to consider the application based on its merits and the petitioner's litigation before the court in the absence of the State Bench.

---