M/S. Tada Web Solution vs. Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court disposed of the present writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before Respondent No. 3 (Joint Commissioner, Appeals) within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within a period of two months from the date of its receipt. The decision of the representation is to be made in light of the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Jian International Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax. The ratio decidendi is that when a party seeks to have their grievances addressed based on a precedent set by a higher court, and the administrative authority has the power to consider such grievances, the High Court may direct the authority to do so, rather than adjudicating the matter directly in a writ petition. The stay petition was also decided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Tada Web Solution, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent authorities to decide their representation in light of a previous judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of Jian International Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax. The petitioner's grievances were to be ventilated before Respondent No. 3, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The specific tax period or amount in dispute is not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the present writ petition challenging an unspecified order or action by the revenue authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file a representation before Respondent No. 3, ventilating their grievances, and if so, whether Respondent No. 3 should be directed to decide the said representation in light of the Delhi High Court's judgment in Jian International Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through their counsel, submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of with liberty to file a representation before Respondent No. 3. They further requested that Respondent No. 3 be directed to decide this representation in accordance with the principles laid down in the Delhi High Court's judgment in Jian International. No specific statutory provisions were named in the argument. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents.