The Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh 2 vs. M/S Lion Jewellers And Another

Facts

The petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.03.2022 passed in favour of the respondent, M/s Lion Jewellers. The writ petition was filed when the GST Tribunal was not in existence. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed an application stating that the Tribunal has now been constituted and can examine the grievance. The respondent placed on record an order dated 14.05.2026 from the GST Tribunal, indicating its constitution in various places, including Punjab and Chandigarh. The High Court noted that an alternative remedy is now available to the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that since an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the GST Tribunal is now available to the petitioner, it is not inclined to continue with the present writ petition. The Court reasoned that questions of fact and law can be effectively thrashed out before the Tribunal at the first instance. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with the observation that if the petitioner files an appeal within six weeks from the date of the order, the Tribunal shall entertain it without raising any objection with regard to limitation. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should continue to hear the writ petition when an alternative appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal is now available, considering the provision of Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (PGST Act)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was entertained only because the Tribunal was not in existence at the time of filing. With the Tribunal now constituted, the grievance can be examined by it. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the Tribunal has been constituted and can examine the grievance raised by the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition should not be continued.