Court On Its Own Motion vs. State Of Hp And Ors

Held

The Court decided to close the proceedings. It took note of the communication dated 15.09.2025, which indicated that the appointment of the Technical Member (State) of the GST Tribunal was under consideration with the ACC, in accordance with the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. The Court was also informed that the BSNL building in Shimla had been identified for the sitting of the GSTAT Bench and that its operationalization was expected soon. Based on this information, the Court was of the considered opinion that the matter required closure. It expressed the expectation that the Union of India would act upon the recommendations received at the earliest, and thereafter, the State would make the necessary arrangements. The Court ordered accordingly, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

Facts

This matter came before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on its own motion. The petitioner was the Court itself, and the respondents were the State of Himachal Pradesh and others, including the Union of India. The core issue revolved around the operationalization of the GST Tribunal Bench in Shimla. Information was presented to the Court indicating that the appointment of the Technical Member (State) of the GST Tribunal was under consideration. Furthermore, a specific building in Shimla (BSNL building) had been identified for the sitting of the GSTAT Bench, and its operationalization was anticipated soon. The Court was informed of these developments through a communication dated 15.09.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should close the proceedings given the ongoing steps towards the operationalization of the GST Tribunal Bench in Shimla, as per Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the relevant rules. Petitioner (Court on its own motion): The Court's primary concern was the delay in the establishment and functioning of the GST Tribunal, which impacts the resolution of GST disputes. The Court likely sought to ensure that the executive authorities were taking expeditious steps to fulfill their statutory obligations under the GST regime. Respondents (State and Union of India): The respondents, through their counsel, presented information regarding the progress made in appointing the Technical Member and identifying a location for the Bench. Their argument would have been that the necessary steps are being taken and that the Court should allow these processes to conclude without further judicial intervention, as indicated by the communication dated 15.09.2025 and the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961.