A party must exhaust available appeal processes within stipulated periods unless the court intervenes.

J U D G M E N T

The respondent – assessee had filed a first appeal against an order passed under the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which ultimately ended in her favour, as evidenced by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner – the Revenue has preferred the captioned writ petition, essentially because it could not invoke the remedy of further appeal before the Tribunal, insofar as the Tribunal had not been constituted under Section 112 of the Act.

2. Heard Sri.Alan Priyadarshi Dev, the learned Government Pleader, as well as Sri.A.Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.G.Mini, the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The Tribunal has since been constituted. Therefore, in my opinion, it is for the Revenue to challenge the first appellate order at Ext.P2 by preferring a second appeal before the Tribunal. At the same time, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would point out that the directions contained in the first appellate order at Ext.P2 have already been implemented by releasing the gold after accepting the fine as directed in the First Appellate Order. Therefore, according to him, there is no requirement for granting any stay as against the implementation of the directions contained in the first appellate order.

Taking note of the afore, this writ petition would stand disposed of, permitting the Revenue – petitioner to prefer a second appeal before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Needless to say that the issue as regards the maintainability of the appeal is left open for consideration by the Tribunal.

Sd/-