Vikrant Nayak vs. The Chairman, Central Board Of Indirect Tax And Customs

Facts

The writ-petitioner, Vikrant Nayak, a non-party to a tribunal proceeding (OA 259 of 2021), sought clarification of an order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner claimed that the interpretation of this order by respondent no. 4 (CGST Authority) impeded his accrued rights concerning a review DPC proceeding. The petitioner argued that the affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 evinced a different construction of the Tribunal's order, causing confusion and prejudice. The High Court noted that while the order of 18.02.2021 was explicit, the petitioner remained aggrieved by its interpretation by the respondent. The Court observed that the petitioner's claim was based on the review DPC proceeding and that clarification was sought for the Tribunal's order.

Held

The High Court held that while the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal was explicit, clear, and lucid, the writ-petitioner felt aggrieved by the interpretation placed upon it by the respondent CGST Authority. The Court found that the writ-petition was intended for clarification of the Tribunal's order. However, it opined that the High Court was not the proper forum for such clarification. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner claimed benefit on the basis of the review DPC proceeding and that the respondent's stand created confusion. Therefore, in the exercise of its power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court suo motu impleaded the writ-petitioner as a party to the tribunal application (OA 259 of 2021). The applicants of the tribunal application were directed to serve a copy of the application on the petitioner's advocate. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to make an application before the Tribunal to agitate his claims, and the Tribunal was expected to decide the same within three weeks of filing, after affording a hearing and recording reasons. The Court clarified that its observations would not impact the claims raised by the petitioner and that the dispute would be decided independently.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interpretation of the Tribunal's order dated 18.02.2021 by the respondent CGST Authority impedes the rights of the writ-petitioner accrued in his favour concerning the review DPC proceeding, and if clarification of the said order is required. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 demonstrated a different construction of the Tribunal's order dated 18.02.2021, which prejudiced his rights. He sought clarification of the said order to resolve the confusion created by the respondent's interpretation. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent CGST Authority, through its affidavit, presented its interpretation of the order dated 18.02.2021. The Court noted that the respondent did not intend to make further comments on the order, considering its language to be explicit and unambiguous. However, the petitioner remained aggrieved by this interpretation.