Globe Mobility Private Limited Vs Union of India And Others (Bombay High Court)
The petition before the Bombay High Court sought to challenge an order passed by the First Appellate Authority under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The primary challenge was rooted in the lack of an operational Appellate Tribunal, which is the statutory forum for hearing appeals against the First Appellate Authority’s orders. In the absence of the Tribunal, the Petitioner (Globe Mobility Private Limited) also mounted a direct challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/MGST Act, 2017, arguing it violated Articles 14 (Equality), 19(1)(g) (Right to practice profession), and 21 (Right to life) of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner’s Plea for High Court Intervention
The counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Raichandani, argued that because the GST Tribunal had not yet been constituted, the Petitioner was deprived of any other alternate or efficacious remedy, necessitating the High Court’s intervention under its writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Petitioner contended that the impugned order from the First Appellate Authority was non-speaking, lacking findings on the numerous contentions raised by them.
Department’s Position and Judicial Precedents
Ms. Vyas, representing the State and Union, strongly opposed entertaining the writ petition, citing the principle of exhaustion of alternate remedies. She provided two key counterpoints:
- Administrative Protection via Trade Circular: The Respondents highlighted a Trade Circular dated August 13, 2024, which provides administrative guidelines for assessees whose First Appeals have been decided but cannot appeal further due to the non-constituted Tribunal. The circular stipulates that by simply completing and submitting a form in Annexure I, the assessee is protected from any recovery proceedings. Crucially, the limitation period for filing the substantive appeal before the Tribunal would only commence from the date the Tribunal is constituted and begins functioning.
- Constitutional Validity Precedent: Regarding the challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, the Respondents informed the Court that its constitutional validity had already been upheld by the High Courts of Gujarat, Kerala, and Patna. The Respondent suggested that the inclusion of the constitutional challenge was a mere “ploy” to bypass the established requirement for exhausting alternate statutory remedies.
Court’s Holding on Alternate Remedy
