M/S Motisons Jewellers LTD. vs. Chief Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax
Held
The Court held that given the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the ongoing process for its establishment, it was not inclined to keep the writ petition pending. The Court referred to Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which likely deals with pre-deposit requirements for appeals. The Court directed that if the petitioner makes the payment as stipulated in Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017, further proceedings for the recovery of the balance amount shall not be drawn. This relief is contingent upon the petitioner availing the statutory remedy of appeal within three months from the date of the constitution of the Tribunal. The Court disposed of the petition with these directions.
Facts
M/s Motisons Jewellers Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The petitioner had exhausted its remedies up to the first appellate authority and approached the High Court due to the non-functional status of the GST Tribunal. The respondents are various authorities of the Central Goods and Service Tax. The petitioner highlighted that similar petitions with identical issues had been disposed of by the High Court. The respondents sought time to seek instructions. The Court noted that the Tribunal was not yet constituted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory appellate tribunal is non-functional, and the petitioner has exhausted remedies up to the first appellate authority? 2. What protection can be granted to the petitioner in light of the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the pendency of proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to the non-functional Tribunal, the writ petition is maintainable. They relied on previous orders of the High Court disposing of similar petitions. Respondent's Contention: The respondents initially sought time to seek instructions. Subsequently, the Court proceeded to dispose of the petition.
Sections Cited
Section 112(8)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 02/12/2024
Heard.
Mr. Sourabh Jain, learned counsel appears under instructions from Mr. Kinshuk Jain on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Tribunal is not functional, petitioner has filed this petition after having exhausted its remedy upto the first appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that petitions involving identi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.