M/S Hesha International Through Its Sole Proprietor Nisha Rajgarhia vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Secretary Commercial Tax Deptt

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hesha International, through its sole proprietor Nisha Rajgarhia, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The petition challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Dhanbad Division. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to appeal the impugned order before the GST Appellate Tribunal, which had since been constituted and was functional. The petitioner stated that when the writ petition was initially filed, the GST Appellate Tribunal was not constituted or fully functional. The petitioner intended to file an appeal before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of the High Court's order.

Held

The Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal. The Court directed that if the appeal is preferred within four weeks from the date of the order, and all statutory requirements are complied with, the Tribunal should consider the appeal on its merits without being deterred by the issue of limitation. This direction was given because the writ petition was pending before the High Court for a considerable period, and there were issues regarding the constitution and/or functioning of the Tribunal. All contentions of the parties on merits were expressly left open for the Tribunal's consideration. The petition was disposed of in terms of the liberty granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, considering the Tribunal was not functional at the time of filing the writ petition? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the GST Appellate Tribunal was not constituted or functional when the writ petition was filed, necessitating the approach to the High Court. Now that the Tribunal is functional, they should be permitted to avail that statutory remedy. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not record any specific contention against the petitioner's request for withdrawal and liberty to appeal before the Tribunal. The Court proceeded based on the petitioner's submission and the counsel's instructions.