M/S Lifelong Meditech Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Lifelong Meditech Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules and an order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Gurugram. The impugned order held certain amounts inadmissible to the petitioner and directed the return of these amounts along with applicable interest to the revenue. The petitioner acknowledged that the challenge to Rule 89(5) had been decided against them in a previous case, Union of India Vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the petitioner sought liberty to avail the alternate remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, which was yet to be constituted, regarding the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. The petitioner also requested protection for the period the writ petition remained pending before the High Court, attributing the delay to the non-constitution of the Tribunal.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not pressed on the issue concerning Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, as this had been decided against the petitioner in Union of India Vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. Regarding the impugned order dated 27.12.2019, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not pressed. However, it granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, along with an appropriate application for condoning the delay. The Court expressed its sanguine expectation that the Tribunal would duly entertain the application for condonation of delay and decide the matter on merits, taking into account the petitioner's stand. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the impugned order itself, nor did it specify the exact period for which the petitioner would be protected regarding the delay. The operative direction was to permit the filing of the appeal with condonation of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Gurugram, by availing the alternate remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, given that the Tribunal is yet to be constituted? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 and procedural delays). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the writ petition had been pending before the High Court, and the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was attributable to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, requesting protection for the period the writ petition was pending. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents regarding the petitioner's request for liberty to file an appeal or the condonation of delay.