M/S Vardhman Ispat Udyog vs. State Of Hp And Another

Held

The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the absence of the appellate tribunal, which is statutorily required to be constituted under Section 109 of the Act, renders the available statutory remedy under Section 112(1) ineffective. The Court acknowledged that in such circumstances, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. The Court relied on the principle that when a statutory appeal lies to a tribunal that is non-existent, the High Court can entertain a writ petition. The Court directed that the order dated 19.5.2023 passed by the appellate authority shall not be given effect to until the appellate tribunal is constituted and the petitioner has had the opportunity to file an appeal within the prescribed period as detailed in the circular dated 3.12.2019.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vardhman Ispat Udyog, approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 19.5.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) HP Goods and Service Tax, which dismissed their appeal against an order dated 30.8.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise. The Joint Commissioner had directed the petitioner to deposit tax, interest, and penalty pursuant to a show cause notice issued on 9.8.2021. The petitioner's grievance was that while Section 112(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provides for a further appeal to an appellate tribunal, such a tribunal has not yet been constituted. Consequently, the petitioner sought directions to prevent the appellate authority's order from being acted upon until the tribunal is formed and their appeal can be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when a specific remedy of appeal to an appellate tribunal is provided under Section 112(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but the tribunal has not been constituted? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that due to the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal as mandated by Section 109 of the Act, there is no alternative efficacious remedy available, making the petition under Article 227 maintainable to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. They relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India and Ors. Respondents' argument: The respondents argued that a writ petition under Article 227 is not maintainable, especially when a specific statutory remedy is available under the Act.