GST Appellate Tribunal setup delayed, but time-bound mandamus issued while prayer to amend statutory service provision was refused.

A time-bound mandamus was issued for completion of the selection process for establishing the GST Appellate Tribunal in Kerala, as steps were already underway and the Court required the process to be completed within four months. The Court declined the separate prayer to substitute "or" with "and" in Section 169 of the CGST Act, holding that a substantive amendment to a statutory provision could not be granted in such a public interest petition and that any individual grievance had to be pursued in appropriate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a direction could be issued for expeditious establishment of the GST Appellate Tribunal in Kerala. (ii) Whether a writ could be issued to amend or rectify the service provision by substituting the word "or" with "and".

Issue (i): Whether a direction could be issued for expeditious establishment of the GST Appellate Tribunal in Kerala.

Analysis: The petition sought a mandamus for early establishment of the tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents stated that steps had already been taken and that the selection process was underway. In view of the ongoing process, the Court directed completion of the selection process within a fixed time.

Conclusion: The relief was granted to the extent of a time-bound direction for completion of the selection process, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ could be issued to amend or rectify the service provision by substituting the word "or" with "and".

Analysis: The prayer sought a substantive amendment to Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in public interest. The Court held that such relief could not be granted in the present petition and that any individual grievance would have to be pursued in appropriate individual proceedings.

Conclusion: The requested amendment-related relief was declined, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition resulted in a limited direction for completion of the tribunal-selection process within four months, while the prayer seeking amendment of the statutory service provision was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may issue a time-bound mandamus to ensure progress in statutory institutional setup, but a substantive challenge seeking amendment of a statutory provision is not grantable in a public interest petition of this nature.

---