Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: September 15, 2022 at 22:12 IST
The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Union government to respond to a plea asking for the creation of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, as soon as practicable and on the highest priority basis in the interest of justice.
Amit Sahni, a lawyer and activist, filed a petition, which was being heard by a division bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli.
Even though the GST Act was passed in 2017, Sahni informed the court that no tribunal had yet been established.
According to the petition, even after 4 years since the Central Goods and Services Act’s passage, the GST Appellate Tribunal has not been established, despite being required to do so under Section 109 of the Act.
“That 4 years have passed and no steps have been taken to constitute either the National Bench or other Benches and consequently, appellate process is pending in many cases arising against the orders/directions passed by the appellate authority on the ground of absence of any appellate tribunal and thus defying the very objectives of introducing the GST Act”, the petition reads.
The plea further states that in the absence of a tribunal, persons who are unhappy with the decisions made by the appellate or revisional authority must file a Writ Petition with the appropriate High Court in accordance with Article 226.
The petition emphasises that this only overtaxes the High Courts.
“That “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” and the delay in appellate process caused to the litigants are absolutely unreasonable and against the proposition of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court.”
“Moreover, appeals against the 8 orders/directions passed by either the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority are getting piled up that will only overburden the Judiciary.”
It is now absolutely necessary to establish the National and other Benches of the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017.
It further said that the Respondents could not drag out the application of its constitution forever.
Furthermore, the Respondent may not, in violation of statutory restrictions, prolong the 90-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Tribunal by means of an administrative order, and in particular, such an extension may not be granted indefinitely.
Numerous complaints were made to the Department of Revenue about the difficulties plaintiffs were having since the Appellate Tribunal was not constitutional.
The Madras High Court ordered the Central Government to amend the CGST Act and consider appointing attorneys with more than ten years of experience as judicial members of the National and other Benches because the delay in the formation of the Appellate Tribunal was a result of the case Revenue Bar Association vs. UOI (Bar Association judgment).
The petition highlighted that the establishment of the Appellate Tribunal is on hold because no changes have been made to the CGST Act, 2017 to that effect.
These factors contributed to the petition’s filing.
Another associated SLP was heard by the court today, asking for bar members with more than ten years of experience to be taken into consideration for the position of judicial member on the GST Tribunals.
Senior Attorney Aravind Datar argued that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court invalidated several aspects of the Tribunal because they had more technical members than judicial members, which was at odds with the Madras Bar Association ruling.
Datar also informed the Court of the situation’s current developments.
“We also challenged a particular provision where the members of the Bar were not allowed to be appointed as judicial members. We took the plea that when they could be members of erstwhile tribunal, there is no logic in denying them to at least be considered…The Government was asked to file a counter.”
“They filed a one-page affidavit saying it is a matter of policy. The High Court said that the exclusion of lawyers does not really matter. So, if the GST Tribunal comes into being, then the members of the Bar should get an opportunity to be at least considered for the post of judicial members.”
After hearing this, the Bench decided that the subject should be brought up for a final hearing, and as a result, the matter was postponed until September 20.