M/S A.B. Enterprises Gstin 09Arkpb4169Q1Z4 Through Its Proprietor Ajra Begum vs. The State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance,Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, solely on the ground of the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal. The Court acknowledged the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, which addresses such situations by extending the appeal period. The reasoning was that the petitioner has a clear statutory remedy available, albeit with a procedural delay due to the tribunal's non-constitution. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel fairly admitted the legal position and the release of goods. Therefore, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal in terms of the Ninth Removal of Difficulties Order, 2019, once it becomes functional.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s A.B. Enterprises, through its proprietor Ajra Begum, filed a writ petition challenging seizure orders MOV 06 dated July 31, 2018, and consequential order MOV 09 dated August 2, 2018, passed by respondent no. 3. The petitioner also challenged an order dated November 27, 2019, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 107(11) of the GST Act and sought a direction for the refund of deposited amounts. The petition was filed bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, on the grounds that the appellate tribunal had not been constituted. The seized goods have since been released.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, on the ground of non-constitution of the appellate tribunal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable as the appellate tribunal had not been constituted, thereby rendering the statutory appeal remedy unavailable. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of deposited amounts. Respondent's contention: The State respondents pointed out that the Government had issued the Central Goods and Service Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, which provides that the three-month period for filing an appeal would be considered from the date the President of the Appellate Tribunal enters office. They argued that the petitioner could wait and avail the appeal remedy once the tribunal is constituted. They also noted that since the seized goods have been released, no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner at present.