M/S Surinder Arora Enterprises vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court held that while the petitioners had raised grievances concerning the GST regime, a specific mechanism for redressal was available through the Nodal Officer and the IT Redressal Committee, as outlined in Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 3.4.2018. The Court, without delving into the merits of the individual cases, directed that petitioners who had not yet filed representations should do so within five days of receiving a certified copy of the order. Existing representations and newly filed ones would be forwarded to the IT Redressal Committee within fifteen days after verification by GSTN. The Committee was directed to decide these representations within four weeks of receipt, after providing an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order, in terms of clause 5.4 of the aforementioned circular. Petitioners were permitted to lead evidence. The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioners.

Facts

The petitioners, registered under the Punjab VAT Act and the GST Act, 2017, faced difficulties post-migration to the GST regime. They approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana seeking redressal. The Court noted that the Delhi High Court had previously dealt with similar matters in 'Sare Realty Projects Private Limited Vs. Union of India & others'. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Nodal Officer or Redressal Committee as per Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 3.4.2018. Many petitioners had submitted representations, but these remained unadjudicated. The Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, directed a procedure for the adjudication of these grievances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions concerning GST grievances when a specific redressal mechanism, including a Nodal Officer and an IT Redressal Committee, has been established under Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 3.4.2018? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that they were facing significant difficulties due to the introduction of the GST Act, 2017, and had approached the Court for relief. They had already filed representations before the Nodal Officer or Redressal Committee, but these had not been adjudicated, necessitating judicial intervention. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the State of Punjab and others, likely contended that the petitioners should exhaust the available statutory or administrative remedies before approaching the High Court. The existence of Circular No.39/13/2018-GST indicated a prescribed procedure for grievance redressal.