M/S Jvg Super Cargo Service Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Division Bench held that the primary prayer of the petitioner, which was to set aside the order of confiscation and penalty, had not been decided by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the impugned order and revived the writ petition, directing it to be placed before the learned Single Judge for a decision on merits. The Court clarified that the release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee would not be affected by this order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory tribunal is non-functional, a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should decide the matter on merits if the lower appellate forum is unavailable.

Facts

M/s JVG Super Cargo Service Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by GST authorities. The petitioner sought the release of detained goods and vehicles, and to set aside orders levying penalty and confiscating goods. The learned Single Judge ordered the release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee, as the petitioner claimed to be a transporter. However, the Single Judge did not adjudicate on the petitioner's challenge to the penalty and confiscation orders. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Division Bench, arguing that since the GST Tribunal was not functional, the writ petition should have been decided on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, filed due to the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal, should have been decided on merits by the learned Single Judge regarding the challenge to penalty and confiscation orders, as per Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the GST Tribunal was not yet constituted and functional, the writ petition was the only available remedy to challenge the orders of the Appellate Commissioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have decided the writ petition on its merits concerning the penalty and confiscation orders. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the merits of the penalty and confiscation orders in the provided text. However, the respondent was represented by the State Tax Officer.