Tvl.Karthika Traders vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the GST Tribunal is not functional, rendering the statutory appellate remedy unavailable. In light of this, the Court held that the writ petition is maintainable as there is no other effective remedy. The Court granted an interim stay of the impugned orders, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the penalty within four weeks from the date of receiving the order. The Court further directed that upon remittance of 10% of the penalty, the attachment made on the petitioner's bank account shall be lifted immediately. The petitioner was advised to file an appeal once the Tribunal becomes functional. The Court disposed of the writ petition with no costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Karthika Traders, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an appellate order dated 26.04.2024, which confirmed an assessment order dated 30.11.2023. The assessment order was passed by the State Tax Officer, Thuckalay, for the tax period 2021-22 under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that while an appeal lies against the appellate authority's order, the GST Tribunal is not yet functional. Consequently, the petitioner contended that a writ petition was the only available remedy. The petitioner also expressed willingness to deposit 10% of the penalty, as required for an appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court in the absence of a functional GST Tribunal, given that an appeal lies against the appellate authority's order under Section 112 of the GST Act? 2. Whether the impugned assessment and appellate orders are liable to be quashed on grounds of being cryptic, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to the non-functional status of the GST Tribunal, there is no efficacious alternative remedy available, thus justifying the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. They relied on the principle that where no alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction can be invoked. They also indicated their readiness to comply with the pre-deposit requirement of 10% of the penalty if an appeal were to be filed. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Appellate Deputy Commissioner and State Tax Officer).