M/S Shibam Builders vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. The reasoning was that at the time the petitions were filed, the GST Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted, and thus, the petitioners had no alternative appellate remedy. However, subsequent to the filing of the petitions, the Department of Revenue issued a notification on 31.07.2024 establishing the GST Appellate Tribunal at Guwahati, which covers the State of Tripura. Personnel have also been selected and allotted to the Guwahati Bench. Since the petitioners now have an opportunity to approach this statutory appellate tribunal, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal, Agartala Bench, which was stated to be functional from 21.01.2026. The writ petitions were disposed of with this liberty.

Facts

Two writ petitions, WP(C) No.71 of 2024 and WP(C) No.136 of 2024, were filed before the High Court of Tripura challenging orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners were Shri Satyajit Saha (Proprietor of Harasundari Stores) and M/s Shibam Builders. The petitions were entertained when the GST Appellate Tribunal, to which appeals against such orders are now appealable under Section 112 of the CGST Act, had not yet been constituted. The respondents were various authorities under the Union of India and the CGST Department.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging orders of the Appellate Authority under the CGST Act, 2017, when the GST Appellate Tribunal, established under Section 109 of the Act, is now functional and provides an alternative appellate remedy. Arguments for the Petitioner: The petitioners argued that their writ petitions were maintainable at the time of filing because the GST Appellate Tribunal was not constituted, leaving them without an effective alternative remedy. They sought to have their matters decided on merits by the High Court. Arguments for the Respondent: The respondents argued that with the establishment of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners now have an appropriate forum to appeal the impugned orders, and therefore, the High Court should not entertain the writ petitions.