Vipul Premises LLP vs. Principal Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Vipul Premises LLP, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging Circular No. 2 of 2015 dated 18.03.2015. The petitioner contended that alternative remedies had become futile. The respondent, Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Jaipur, was asked to provide instructions regarding the provision under which the impugned circular was issued. The respondent's counsel, on instructions, submitted that the circular was an internal guideline and not binding on the Adjudicating Officer or the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the petitioner withdrew the petition, seeking liberty to avail the remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that Circular No. 2 of 2015 dated 18.03.2015 is an internal guideline and is neither binding on the Adjudicating Officer nor on the Appellate Authority. In light of this statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they were not pressing the petition and sought liberty to avail the remedy of appeal. The Court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal. The Court further directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within six weeks from the date of the order, subject to the fulfillment of the condition of maintainability, it shall be considered to have been filed within the limitation period. The issue of the validity or binding nature of the circular itself was not decided on merits, as the petition was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether Circular No. 2 of 2015 dated 18.03.2015 is binding on the authorities under the GST regime, and if not, whether its issuance renders alternative remedies futile. The petitioner argued that the circular, by its nature and content, created a situation where pursuing alternative remedies would be a futile exercise. The petitioner's counsel sought to challenge the circular directly through a writ petition, indicating a belief that the circular itself was the source of grievance and that its existence precluded effective recourse through the normal appellate process. The respondent argued that the impugned circular was merely an internal guideline and was not binding on either the Adjudicating Officer or the Appellate Authority. This submission aimed to demonstrate that the circular did not have the force of law and therefore could not be the basis for rendering alternative remedies futile. The respondent's stance was that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate remedies available.