Devendra Prasad Yadav vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr. (2015 AIR SCW 1270) was applicable to the present case. The Supreme Court had emphasized the importance of establishing tribunals at the seat of the jurisdictional High Court or, failing that, establishing circuit benches to ensure convenience and expediency for litigants. The Court found that the impugned notification establishing the GST Tribunal at Dehradun without a circuit bench at Nainital was contrary to this established ratio. However, given that the GST Tribunal had not yet become functional, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a representation before the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. The Secretary was directed to consider this representation, afford a hearing, and pass a reasoned order within two months. The Court also suggested that the Ministry of Finance might consider whether to constitute the Tribunal at Dehradun immediately or await the decision on the representation.

Facts

The petitioner, Devendra Prasad Yadav, filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated 21.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Union of India. This notification established a State Bench of the GST Tribunal under Section 109(6) of the CGST Act at Dehradun, instead of Nainital, which is the seat of the High Court of Uttarakhand. The petitioner argued that this placement was inconvenient for litigants and contrary to established legal principles. The respondent Union of India stated that the GST Tribunal at Dehradun had not yet become functional. The High Court noted that the defects in the petition were minor and overruled them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the establishment of the GST Tribunal's State Bench at Dehradun, rather than Nainital (the seat of the High Court), is contrary to law and principles of convenience for litigants, in light of Section 109(6) of the CGST Act and Section 26 of the UP Reorganization Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the placement of the GST Tribunal at Dehradun, away from the High Court's seat in Nainital, inconveniences litigants by forcing them to travel long distances and incur additional expenses. This arrangement, the petitioner argued, contravenes the principle that redressal mechanisms should be as convenient and expedient as they were prior to their establishment, citing the Supreme Court's stance in similar matters. Revenue's arguments: The respondent Union of India did not present substantive arguments against the petitioner's claim on the merits of the location. Their primary submission was that the GST Tribunal at Dehradun had not yet been made functional.