Court Questions Inconsistent GST Stance, Imposes Rs. 1,00,000 Fine for Non-Participation, Demands Justification from Official.

The HC addressed the petitioners' reliance on a similar favorable judgment from the Gujarat HC, questioning the respondents' decision to contest. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise to personally justify the differing stance. Respondent no. 2's prolonged non-participation led to a Rs. 1,00,000 cost, payable to the HC Legal Aid Fund, emphasizing the necessity of justification and participation in proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Contesting a petition despite a similar judgment by another High Court.
2. Respondent's decision to contest the petition despite a favorable judgment.
3. Service of respondents and respondent no. 2's non-participation in the proceedings.

Issue 1: Contesting a petition despite a similar judgment by another High Court
The High Court noted that the petitioners relied on a judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a similar case involving the petitioners. The petitioners argued that since the respondents did not challenge the Gujarat High Court's judgment, there was no reason for them to contest the present petition. The Court adjourned the case multiple times for the respondents to decide their stand. If no reply affidavit was filed within two weeks, it was decided that the Court would proceed based on the petitioners' statement.

Issue 2: Respondent's decision to contest the petition despite a favorable judgment
In a subsequent order, the Court highlighted that the impugned show cause notice was based on similar facts as a previous case where the Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The only difference was the tax involved. Despite this, the respondents, represented by the Revenue, decided to contest the present petition. The Court found this surprising and directed the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise to justify the differing stand taken by the Revenue. The Court emphasized that the affidavit should be filed by the Principal Commissioner personally.

Issue 3: Service of respondents and respondent no. 2's non-participation in the proceedings
The Court acknowledged that all respondents were served except for respondent no. 2, who had not participated in the proceedings for over five years. Despite strong opposition, the Court granted an extension but imposed a stiff cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on respondent no. 2. The amount was to be paid to the High Court Legal Aid Fund before the next date, and proof of payment was required to be furnished to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of contesting a petition despite a similar judgment, the decision of the respondents to continue contesting, and the non-participation of a respondent leading to the imposition of a cost. The Court emphasized the need for justification when differing from a previous judgment and imposed a significant cost for non-participation.

---