No provision for Appeal against IGST order before U.P. GSTAT: HC Admits Writ 

Abdul Rahman & Sons Vs Union of India And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)

The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Abdul Rahman & Sons Vs Union of India and 4 Others, tackled a significant issue concerning the appeal process under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act. The Court admitted a writ petition challenging the absence of a provision for appeal against an IGST order before the U.P. GST Appellate Authority.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Abdul Rahman & Sons, was represented by Sri Sameer Gupta and Sri Rohan Gupta, while the state-respondents were represented by Sri Ankur Agarwal. The primary contention was the interpretation of Sections 6(3) and 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, in relation to orders passed under the IGST Act. The petitioner argued that these sections do not provide for an appeal to the U.P. GST Appellate Authority for orders issued under the IGST Act.

Provisions Involved

1. Section 6(3) of U.P. GST Act, 2017: This section deals with the jurisdiction and powers of the officers under the U.P. GST Act and their ability to pass orders.
2. Section 107 of U.P. GST Act, 2017: This section outlines the appellate process for orders passed under the U.P. GST Act.
3. IGST Act: The IGST Act governs the interstate supply of goods and services and incorporates provisions from the CGST Act for implementation and enforcement.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the appellate mechanism under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act does not extend to orders passed under the IGST Act. They highlighted that for an appeal to lie before the U.P. GST Appellate Authority, the order must be passed under the U.P. GST Act. Since the IGST Act governs interstate transactions and incorporates provisions from the CGST Act, any appeal against an IGST order should logically be addressed under the CGST framework.

Consideration by the Court

The Court acknowledged the complexity of the issue and decided to entertain the writ petition for further examination. It recognized the need to interpret the legislative intent behind the GST laws and their implementation across different statutes. The Court’s decision to entertain the writ indicates the importance of clarifying the appellate process for orders under the IGST Act.

Interim Measures

Pending the final decision, the Court noted that the goods in question had already been released following a deposit made by the petitioner. This interim measure ensured that the business operations of Abdul Rahman & Sons were not unduly hampered while the legal proceedings continued.

The Court granted the state-respondents four weeks to file a counter affidavit, after which the petitioner would have two weeks to file a rejoinder affidavit. This timeline indicates the Court’s intention to expedite the proceedings and arrive at a resolution promptly.

The Allahabad High Court’s decision to admit the writ petition in Abdul Rahman & Sons Vs Union of India and 4 Others highlights a significant gap in the appellate framework of the GST regime.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. Heard Sri Sameer Gupta, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Submission is, by virtue of Section 6(3) read with Section 107 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017, no appeal may lie before the Appellate Authority constituted under that Act with reference to the order passed under the I.G.S.T. Act. Referring to the provisions of Section 107 and the provisions of Section 107 of the C.G.S.T. Act, it has been submitted, no order has been passed under the Central Act as may allow for any appeal to arise before the Central Authority.

3. Matter requires consideration.

4. The writ petition is thus entertained.

5. On the merit issue, goods have already been released, consequent to deposit

6. Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

7. List thereafter.