Case Law Details
Vectus Industries Limited Vs Chif Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court)
Heard Mr. Pankaj Ghiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General for the State Authorities and Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India upon whom the copy of the writ petition was served on the direction of the court as the matter involved functionality of the Tribunal.
The petitioner is a supplier of goods. He generated E-way Bill for transport of goods from Tumkur, Karnataka to Fatehabad, Haryana but the said E-way Bill was incorrectly generated by the portal of the Department by wrongly mentioning the distance between the two stations to be 500 kilometers instead of 2349 approximately, as is apparent from the screen shot of the E-way Bill system of the Department. It is on account of the above mistake that the time period for the transportation was also wrongly mentioned and the goods were seized on account of excess time consumed in transporting the material contrary to the specifications of E-way Bill.
In view of the above, a challenge has been made to the Assessment Order passed by the First Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST. It is submitted that since the Second Appellate Authority i.e the Tribunal is not functional anywhere in the country, it is next to impossible for the petitioner to avail the said remedy and as such they have no remedy except to approach this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. R.D. Rastogi, ASG accepts that the Tribunals are not functional and has assigned reasons in that regard. The primary reason is that the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a writ petition (C) No.1018/ 2021-Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and that even then the authorities are working on it so that the Tribunals may be made functional soon.
He prays for and is allowed a month’s time to file counter affidavit bringing on record the stand of the Union of India with regard to making functional the Tribunals under the GST as a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act lies before it. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 may also file response justifying the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 which has been passed on account of the mistake of the Department in generating the e-way bill.
The petitioner in the meantime may move a formal application for impleading the Union of India through Ministry of Finance as one of the respondents.
List for admission/final disposal after six weeks.
Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 04.01.2021 shall remain stayed and the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action so as to recover any amount in pursuance thereof.
