M/S Kavita Metals vs. Department Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance that the Goods and Service Tax Tribunal (GSTT) is not functional. The petitioner, after arguing at length, chose not to press their petitions. The Court disposed of the writ petitions as 'not pressed' while granting the petitioner liberty to avail the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. Crucially, the Court provided a significant concession regarding limitation: in the event the petitioner files an appeal within three months from the date of the constitution of the Tribunal, it shall be considered to have been filed within the prescribed limitation period. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to request early disposal of the appeal once filed, which the Court stated would be considered in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petitions were disposed of based on the petitioner's request not to press them.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kavita Metals, represented by its proprietor Phoowati Choudhary, filed multiple writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur. The petitions challenged actions or orders passed by the Department of Commercial Taxes, State of Rajasthan, and the Union of India. The specific tax periods and the exact nature of the orders under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, decided not to press the petitions. A key grievance raised by the petitioner was the non-functionality of the Goods and Service Tax Tribunal (GSTT) since the implementation of GST in 2017, leaving them without a forum for appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is remediless due to the non-functional status of the Goods and Service Tax Tribunal (GSTT)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the non-functional status of the GSTT, despite the implementation of GST in 2017, has left them without a proper appellate remedy. They contended that this situation deprives them of their right to seek redressal against adverse orders. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Department of Commercial Taxes, State of Rajasthan, and Union of India) on the issue of the GSTT's functionality or the petitioner's lack of remedy. However, the court's order implicitly acknowledges the petitioner's grievance regarding the tribunal's status.