the essay of 20 October 2021 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<div align="center">
<p align="left"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">OCTOBER 20, 2021 </font></strong></p>
<p><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GST Appeals - Who is the appellant/respondent? </strong></font>
</p>
</div>
<p align="center"><u><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Vijay Kumar </font></strong></u></p>
<p align="justify"><STRONG><FONT SIZE="2" FACE="VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF">IN</FONT></STRONG><FONT SIZE="2" FACE="VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF"> a CGST appeal by a Commissioner, who should be the appellant and similarly in an appeal by a taxpayer, who should be the respondent? Please have a look at these representative cases reported by us:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>1. Principal Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Vs Lantech Pharmaceuticals Ltd <strong>- <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTU1NjM0" target="_blank">2020-TIOL-06-SC-GST-LB </a></strong></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. National Anti Profiteering Authority Vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd </font></em><strong><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTYzNTA2" target="_blank">2021-TIOL-25-SC-GST </a></font></em></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Union of India Vs Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd </font></em><strong><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTYzNDI0" target="_blank">2021-TIOL-21-SC-GST-LB </a></font></em></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Suresh Kumar PP Vs Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence </font></em><strong><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTYzNjc5" target="_blank">2021-TIOL-57-SC-GST-LB </a></font></em></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Devendra Dwivedi Vs Union of India - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTYzMjMx"></a></font></em><strong><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTYzMjMx" target="_blank">2021-TIOL-02-SC-GST-LB </a></font></em></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. Gulshan Dhingra Vs Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax -</font></em><strong><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTYxMDA0" target="_blank">2020-TIOL-154-SC-GST </a></font></em></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7. Ashok Kumar Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE -</font></em><strong><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTYwODU4" target="_blank">2020-TIOL-150-SC-GST-LB </a></font></em></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In these 7 cases, the first three are petitions/appeals by the Government and the appellant/petitioner is shown as: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Principal Commissioner </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. National Anti Profiteering Authority </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Union of India </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And in the four other cases, the respondent is shown as: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Union of India </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. Directorate General of Goods And Service Tax </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7. Commissioner of CGST & CE</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, can the Principal Commissioner or the National Anti Profiteering Authority file petitions for and in the name of '<em>Union of India' </em>? Similarly can the Deputy Director, Directorate General or Commissioner be the respondent on behalf of the <em>Union of India</em>?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Article 300 of the Constitution of India, <em> the Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the </em></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"sans-serif" style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span"><em>Union of India.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, if the Government is the petitioner/appellant in a case, the petitioner/appellant should be shown as '<em>Union of India' </em> - similarly as respondent in cases against the government.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But we see many cases like <em>Commissioner vs </em>…..</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here is an interesting case - <em>Divisional Railway Manager Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax </em> - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=OTEyMDU="><strong>2013-TIOL-1891-CESTAT-DEL </strong></a></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CESTAT delivered this landmark judgement by which all demands by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Department against Central Government and State Government Departments have become a NULLITY - which cannot be enforced.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The basic question revolves around 'who should be the appellant/respondent in a case filed by/against a Government Department'.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Section 79 of the CPC,</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Suits by or against Government.-- In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be-</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(a) in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government, the Union of India; and </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(b) in the case of a suit by or against a State Government, the State. </em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So if you are filing a case against the Government as in GST, the respondent should be <em>"Union of India"</em> and if a Department is filing a case, the petitioner/appellant should be <em>"Union of India"</em>, but in practice, we find that many of the appeals before the Tribunals and High Courts are either filed against a Commissioner or filed by a Commissioner. <strong>Union of India </strong>is rarely a party. This seems to be against the above provisions.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CESTAT considered this issue.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appeal was filed by the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer against a Service Tax demand. The Tribunal observed,</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Suits or proceedings against the State can be pursued only in the name of the Union of India or the concerned State, as the case may be. It is axiomatic that neither the Secretary to the Government; the Railway Board nor as has been done in the present case, the Divisional Railway Manager, Ajmer Division may in law and per se represent the Indian Railways or the Union of India, in the absence of the Central Government being arrayed as a party. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>A decree passed against the Divisional Railway Manager cannot be executed against the Union of India nor can a decree or award passed against the Divisional Railway Manager be satisfied by drawals from the Consolidated Fund of India. The provisions of Chapter II, in particular, the elaborate provisions relating to procedure in financial matters set out in Articles 112 to Article 114 in the Constitution clearly indicate that a charge upon or an appropriation from the Consolidated Fund of India could only be in respect of expenditure of the Government of India.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"sans-serif"style="background-color:#DFF3CB" span="span"><em>It is noticed in several cases, clearly oblivious of this fundamental constitutional mandate, proceedings are initiated against state actors instead of the State as duly designated under the Constitutional mandate.</em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Tribunal noted a Supreme Court decision in Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. vs. Collector and others wherein it was observed,</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Every post in the hierarchy of the posts in the Government set-up from the lowest to the highest, is not recognized as a juristic person nor can the State be treated as represented when a suit/proceeding is in the name of such offices/posts or the officers holding such posts, therefore, in the absence of the State in the array of parties, the cause will be defeated for non-joinder of a necessary party to the lis, in any court or Tribunal. </em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Tribunal held:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The adjudicated liability, in the circumstances cannot be charged on the Indian Railways. Since the very initiation of assessment proceedings, in respect of the alleged liability to service tax of the India Railways is patently misconceived, the entire proceedings are a nullity. The appeal before us preferred by the Divisional Railway Manager is also, for reasons alike, mis-conceived and so are the Misc. applications. </em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And so the appeal by the Divisional Railway Manager was dismissed.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What could be the consequences?</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Are all the demands against Government Departments (where Union of India is not made a party) nullity and the demands simply evaporate into thin air? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Are all the appeals filed by Commissioners invalid, as Union of India is not made an appellant? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Are all the appeals in which Commissioner is the only respondent invalid, as Union of India is not made a respondent? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. If a Railway officer has to file an appeal against a GST Commissioner's order, should it be Union of India vs Union of India - can you file an appeal against yourself? </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Incidentally, Rule 12 of the <em>Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 </em>reads as:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><em>RULE 12. Who may be joined as respondents </em></strong><em>- (1) In an appeal or an application by a person other than the Commissioner or the Administrator, the Commissioner concerned or the Administrator shall be made the respondent to the appeal or, as the case may be, the application. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(2) In an appeal or an application by the Commissioner or the Administrator, the other party shall be made the respondent to the appeal or as the case may be, application. </em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per this, the Commissioner is to be the respondent/appellant, but what is the status of these Rules before the Constitution and the Supreme Court?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interestingly against the CESTAT order mentioned above, the <em>Union of India </em> filed an appeal in the High Court. And the appellant was the 'Commissioner of Central Excise' (not <em>Union of India</em>) and the respondent was 'Divisional Railway Manager'.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court observed - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTA0NjA0" target="_blank"><strong>2014-TIOL-2576-HC-ALL-ST</strong></a></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The Divisional Railway Manager, who is an employee of the Union of India or Ministry of Railway, is not the assessee. No show cause notice was issued to the Union Government. The adjudication did not take place against the Union Government. The order of adjudication and the demand that would be raised in pursuance thereof, would be enforced not against the Divisional Railway Manager but against the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways. Having regard to this position, it is but necessary that the proceedings commencing with the notice to show cause must be initiated against the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The Divisional Railway Manager was not acting as a statutory authority. Hence, the entire exercise of adjudication which commenced with the notice to show cause is clearly a nullity. The show cause notice ought to have been issued against the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways and not against the Divisional Railway Manager who was but an employee and servant of the Ministry of Railways.</em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The perseverant Revenue took the matter in appeal to the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue Appeal on the ground of delay as well as on merits, but the question of law is kept open.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can share a personal experience:- I filed a writ in a High Court against an order of attachment by a Deputy Commissioner and the attachment was stayed, but when the case came up for hearing, I was told that my writ is not correct as I had not made the Union of India as a respondent. I prayed for allowing me to file a Miscellaneous Petition for inclusion of Union of India as a respondent, which was allowed by His Lordship. It was the same judge of the High Court who, later as President of CESTAT delivered this judgement of the Tribunal.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can this defect be rectified? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <em>Chief of The Army Staff and Ors. vs Daya Shanker Tiwari</em>, the Allahabad High Court held, </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>we reach the inescapable conclusion that the writ is not maintainable against the Government officers or the employees of the State, it lies only against the State and if State is not impleaded, the writ is not maintainable</em>. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This issue doesn't seem to be taken seriously always by the Government or the Courts. Please see the following cases: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Union of India Vs CESTAT - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=27&filename=legal/hc/2005/2005-TIOL-51-HC-KOL-CESTAT.htm" target="_blank"><strong>2005-TIOL-51-HC-KOL-CESTAT</strong> </a></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Vs - CESTAT, SOUTH REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTI2NzE1" target="_blank"><strong>2013-TIOL-1268-HC-MAD-CX</strong> </a></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Commissioner of Central GST, Mumbai West Commissionerate Vs CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BRANCH AND ANOTHER - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTQ5OTE1" target="_blank"><strong>2019-TIOL-1441-HC-MUM-CX</strong> </a></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In these cases, Commissioners have made the CESTAT a respondent. Can the CESTAT defend its order in a higher court? Is it expected to do so? Do you ever make a High Court as a respondent? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And in this case -</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt Ltd vs COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTY0Nzc0" target="_blank"><strong>2021-TIOL-616-HC-MUM-ST</strong> </a></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">the Commissioner (Appeals) was made a respondent and to jest complete the story, in this case - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Vs CROWN TOURS LTD - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTU3NjU1" target="_blank"><strong>2019-TIOL-3682-CESTAT-DEL</strong> </a></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">the Commissioner (Appeals) filed the appeal! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This may appear as a small issue now, but it can snowball into a <em>Cannon </em> as happened for the notices issued by DRI. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Until Next Week. </strong></font></p>
</body>
</html>