The Commissioner (CGST), Commissionerate Of Central Goods And Service Tax vs. Cadila Healthcare LTD.

Held

The Court noted that the writ petition was instituted when the GST Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted. However, it was pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal has since been constituted and notified. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. All contentions of all parties were left open to be determined by the Tribunal. The Court made no order as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that when an alternate statutory remedy, such as an appeal to a constituted Tribunal, becomes available after the institution of a writ petition, the High Court may direct the petitioner to avail that remedy, leaving all contentions open for the Tribunal's determination.

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST, Goa, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging an order. The respondent is Cadila Healthcare Ltd. The petition was filed at a time when the GST Appellate Tribunal had not yet been constituted. The petitioner is the Commissioner (CGST), Commissionerate of Central Goods & Service Tax, and the respondent is Cadila Healthcare Ltd. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed, other than the fact that it was instituted before the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Bombay High Court at Goa has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition when an alternate remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal is available and the Tribunal has since been constituted? The Petitioner, represented by Ms. Asha Desai, Senior Standing Counsel, contended that the petition was filed when the Appellate Tribunal was not constituted. However, she fairly pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal has since been constituted and notified. The Petitioner did not explicitly argue for the merits of the case before the High Court, but rather brought to the Court's attention the subsequent development regarding the Tribunal's constitution. The Respondent's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. No specific provisions of the CGST Act or Rules were argued by either party in the High Court.