2025 (9) TMI 1524 - HC - GST

Petitioner must deposit Rs.20 lakh within six weeks; stay limited to that deposit; petition dismissed

Christie's India Private Limited Versus Union of India And Ors.

HC refused an unconditional stay and upheld the impugned provision's effect, noting that the State should not be deprived of dues due to disputes between ... Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and its corresponding provision in the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- It is satisfied that the State should not be deprived of its dues primarily on account of disputes between the Petitioner and the 5th Respondent as to the liability for payment. At least at present, it cannot be held that the payment of Rs. 21 lakhs by the 5th Respondent discharges the entire liability towards tax. Suppose the Petitioner seriously believes that the liability is that of the 5th Respondent. In that case, the Petitioner can always initiate proceedings to recover such amount from the 5th Respondent in accordance with the law. Neither the dispute with the 5th Respondent nor the fact that the Respondent may have paid Rs. 21 lakhs would entitle the Petitioner to an unconditional stay in a matter involving the Revenue. The recoveries stayed pursuant to the order dated 28 February 2025, subject to the Petitioner depositing in this Court an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs within 6 weeks from the date of uploading of this order. This amount is determined having regard to the dues, which are prima facie Rs. 1 Crore, the payment made by the Fifth Respondent, and the contention about the amount usually required to deposit for restraining coercive action. Furthermore, at least 3 High Courts have already upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned provision. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its corresponding State provision) is constitutionally invalid as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution. 2. Whether interim relief in the form of a stay of recovery pursuant to a tax demand should be granted to the petitioner unconditionally, where a third party (alleged liable person) has made a part payment and the liability as between the petitioner and that third party is disputed. 3. What interim conditions (if any) are appropriate where conflicting High Court decisions on the constitutionality of the impugned provision exist and the State's revenue recovery is sought to be restrained. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 300A) Legal framework: The challenge invokes Article 14 (equality before law), Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business), and Article 300A (right to property) against a statutory provision in the Central and corresponding State GST Acts that prescribes tax/credit consequences under certain factual matrices. Precedent treatment: The Court notes that several High Courts (Kerala, Patna, Madhya Pradesh) have upheld the vires of the impugned provision, while a recent decision of another High Court (Gauhati) has struck it down. No binding precedent of a higher court is cited deciding the issue conclusively. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court did not finally determine the constitutional questions in the present proceeding. Instead, having issued a Rule and having taken note of conflicting High Court rulings, the Court proceeded to regulate interim relief. The Court expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits of the constitutional challenge at this interlocutory stage. Ratio vs. Obiter: Observations regarding the existence of conflicting High Court decisions and their effect on interim relief are operative for the interim order and are ratio for the limited purpose of granting conditional stay; they are not a final adjudication on the constitutionality of the provision. No substantive ratio on the validity of the provision is laid down. Conclusions: The constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) remains an open question in this proceeding; the Court issued Rule and gave notice (including to the Attorney General) for full hearing. The Court's reliance on prior High Court decisions is limited to assessment of appropriateness of interim relief and does not decide the constitutional challenge. Issue 2 - Appropriateness of unconditional stay of recovery where third party has paid part amount and liability between parties is disputed Legal framework: Principles governing interim relief in revenue matters-particularly the limited scope for restraining coercive recovery by the State where there is a dispute as to the party ultimately liable-apply. The petitioner's ability to seek reimbursement or recovery from the third party is subject to ordinary civil remedies; such disputes do not automatically entitle restraint of revenue recovery. Precedent treatment: The Court refers to the general principle that the State should not be deprived of its dues on account of disputes between private parties as to ultimate liability, and to prevailing High Court decisions upholding the impugned provision which influence the exercise of discretion on interim relief. No contrary binding authority requiring unconditional stays was found to lie against the State in the present factual matrix. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the effect of the third party's payment of a portion of the disputed demand (Rs. 21 lakhs) and concluded that such payment does not, without more, discharge the entire tax liability of the petitioner. The Court emphasized the availability of independent proceedings to recover sums from the third party if the petitioner believes that party is liable. Given these considerations and the revenue character of the claim, the Court determined that an unconditional stay was not appropriate. Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that a part-payment by an alleged third-party liable person does not automatically discharge the taxpayer's liability and does not entitle the taxpayer to an unconditional stay of recovery is ratio for interim relief in similar factual situations. Observations recommending recourse to separate recovery proceedings against the third party are practical directions and form part of the operative reasoning for denying unconditional stay. Conclusions: The Court refused to grant an unconditional stay of recovery. The petitioner was directed to pursue available remedies against the third party for contribution or indemnity; such private disputes do not justify withholding the State's revenue. Issue 3 - Appropriate interim conditions where conflicting authorities exist and State recovery is sought Legal framework: Courts exercise equitable discretion in interlocutory matters involving public revenue, balancing the protection of constitutional rights and the State's interest in tax collection. Where legal positions are contested and conflicting High Court decisions exist, courts may require security or deposit as condition for stay to protect the revenue while preserving the petitioner's ability to litigate the constitutional issue. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the factual reality of multiple High Courts upholding the impugned provision and one recent contrary decision, treating this conflict as relevant to the exercise of discretion on interim relief rather than as determinative of the constitutional issue itself. Interpretation and reasoning: Balancing the competing interests, the Court concluded that a conditional stay would suitably protect the State's revenue and the petitioner's right to adjudication. The deposit amount was fixed after considering (a) the prima facie dues of approximately Rs. 1 crore, (b) the part-payment by the third party, and (c) customary practice regarding amounts ordered to be deposited to restrain coercive action in appeals. Ratio vs. Obiter: The decision to grant a stay subject to a specified deposit is ratio as an interlocutory order in this case; it exemplifies the principle that relief restraining recovery of public revenue may be granted conditionally where the petitioner deposits a fair portion of the disputed demand. Observations about the number of High Courts favoring the impugned provision inform but do not determine the constitutional issue and are thus incidental to the operative order. Conclusions: The Court stayed recoveries pursuant to the tax demand order, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 20 lakhs in Court within six weeks and giving intimation to counsel for the respondents; failure to deposit will vacate the stay automatically. The stay is conditional, preserving the State's revenue protection while the constitutional challenge and other disputes proceed.