M/S Genus Innovation LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s Genus Innovation Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner sought relief concerning a GST matter. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan, acknowledged that the GST Appellate Tribunal had not yet been constituted. They proposed that the petition be disposed of with a direction that the petitioner could file an appeal within a stipulated period from the date the Tribunal is constituted, provided they make the payment as per Section 112(8) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner agreed to this proposal. The court was considering the admission of the petition but, with the consent of both parties, proceeded to dispose of it finally.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition, at this stage, would be disposed of. The Court directed that if the petitioner makes the payment as stipulated in sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, no further recovery proceedings would be initiated for the balance amount. This relief is contingent upon the petitioner availing the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of three months from the date the GST Appellate Tribunal is constituted. The reasoning is based on the agreement of both parties to resolve the matter in view of the non-constitution of the Tribunal, providing a procedural recourse to the petitioner while acknowledging the statutory framework. The ratio decidendi is that in the absence of a constituted appellate tribunal, High Courts can grant interim relief and set timelines for statutory appeals, subject to compliance with pre-deposit provisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained and kept pending in light of the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, or if an alternative mechanism for disposing of the matter should be adopted? (Section 112(8) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner agreed to the disposal of the petition on the condition proposed by the respondents, implying acceptance of the alternative mechanism. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that since the Tribunal is not constituted, the petition should not be kept pending. They proposed that the petition be disposed of with protection under Section 112(8) of the Act, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within a stipulated period from the Tribunal's constitution. They relied on a circular dated 23.03.2020 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department (Tax Division).