Manish Jain Proprietor Of M/S Bandematram Group vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Manish Jain, proprietor of M/s Bandematram Group, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-appeal dated 12.10.2022, which upheld the rejection of his refund claim by an order dated 16.08.2021. The petitioner argued that he was awaiting the constitution of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Tribunal to file a statutory appeal, but the Tribunal had not yet been constituted. The Court was informed that a notification had been issued appointing the Chairperson of the GST Tribunal effective 01.09.2024, and it was expected to be functioning. Consequently, the Court deemed it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal before the GST Tribunal. The reasoning was based on the information provided that a notification had been issued appointing the Chairperson of the GST Tribunal with effect from 01.09.2024, indicating that the Tribunal ought to be functioning. Therefore, the Court found it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when an effective statutory remedy, such as an appeal to a constituted Tribunal, is available or becoming available. The operative direction was to dispose of the present petition, clarifying that if the GST Tribunal does not commence regular functioning within three months from the date of the order, the petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal before the GST Tribunal, given its expected functioning? The petitioner contended that he was unable to pursue his statutory appeal before the GST Tribunal as it had not been constituted. He argued that the pendency of the Tribunal's constitution prevented him from availing the available remedy. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and CBIC, did not present any specific arguments on the petitioner's inability to appeal, but the Court was informed of the recent notification regarding the appointment of the GST Tribunal's Chairperson, implying that the remedy was becoming available. The Court's decision hinges on the availability of this statutory appeal mechanism.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing an order-in- appeal dated 12.10.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal against the refund rejection order dated 16.08.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been awaiting the constitution of Goods and Services Tax Tribunal (hereafter GST Tribunal) to avail the remedy of statutory appeal. However, the petitioner has been unable to do so as the GST Tribunal has not been constituted as yet.
This Court is informed that a notification has been issued appointing the Chairperson of the GST Tribunal with effect from 01.09.2024 and the
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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.