Globe Mobility Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's argument regarding the lack of findings in the impugned order did not, prima facie, warrant deviation from the practice of exhausting alternate remedies. The Court noted that the Trade Circular dated 13 August 2024 substantially protected the Petitioner. The Petitioner had filed the writ petition within the timeline prescribed for submitting the necessary form under this circular. Therefore, by submitting the form within four weeks of the order, the Petitioner would secure the benefits outlined in the circular. The Court found it unnecessary to entertain the petition at this stage on the ground of constitutional invalidity, as the case could be disposed of on grounds not involving such a challenge. The Petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/MGST Act along with a challenge to the Tribunal's order if their appeal before the Tribunal failed. All contentions on merits were left open to be decided by the Tribunal.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Globe Mobility Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24 February 2025 passed by the First Appellate Authority. The Petitioner argued that since the GST Tribunal was not constituted, they had no efficacious alternative remedy. They also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/MGST Act, alleging it violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioner contended that the impugned order lacked findings on their raised contentions. The Respondent, Union of India, referred to a Trade Circular dated 13 August 2024, which provided guidelines for recovering dues when the Appellate Tribunal is not functioning, suggesting the Petitioner could submit a form to prevent recoveries. The Respondent also stated that the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) had been upheld by other High Courts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the GST Tribunal, given its current non-constitution, despite the existence of a Trade Circular providing interim measures for recovery? (Question of law) 2. Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/MGST Act is constitutionally valid, or if it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India? (Question of constitutional law) Petitioner's Contentions: The Petitioner argued that the absence of a constituted GST Tribunal rendered their alternate remedy unavailable. They also contended that the impugned order failed to address several of their arguments, justifying the High Court's intervention. Furthermore, they challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/MGST Act. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue pointed to a Trade Circular dated 13 August 2024, which offered a mechanism to prevent recoveries by submitting a specific form. They also argued that the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) had been previously upheld by the Gujarat, Kerala, and Patna High Courts, suggesting the challenge was a tactic to avoid the alternate remedy objection.