1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in this and connected matters, learne Standing Counsel for the revenue, Shri Krishnaji Shukla, Shri Devendra Gupta and Shri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. On 21.08.2019, this Court passed the below quoted order containing details of the number of appeals being filed in different districts of the State:

“1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Nishant Mishra, Ms. Pooja Talwar, Sri Naveen Chandra Gupta, Sri Praveen Kumar, Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, Sri Shubham Agrawal, Sri Murari Mohan Rai & Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the respective petitioners, Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Devendra Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

2. These and other connected writ petitions have come to be filed before this Court against the orders passed by various first appeal authorities under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). While these orders are mostly referable to Section 107 of the Act, the legislature has contemplated remedy of appeal against such orders before the Appellate Tribunal (to be constituted under Section 109 of the Act). While the Act was enforced w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and more than two years have passed since then, the Tribunal has yet not been constituted.

3. At the same time relying on an affidavit in Writ Tax No. 1538 of 2018, Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel would state that upto 15.07.2019, 6,163 first appeals came to be instituted under the Act in different districts/areas of the State of U.P. Of these, 2,339 first appeals stand decided upto 15.07.2019.

4. The non-constitution of the Tribunal by the Union has a direct bearing on the grievance that may continue to exist against these 2,339 orders passed in first appeals. In absence of the Tribunal being constituted, the present batch of writ petitions and other connected petitions have come to be instituted before this Court. At times, even the State has felt aggrieved and filed writ petitions. In each such case, the petitioner has pleaded that the alternative remedy is not available to it on account of non-constitution of the Tribunal. That being an admitted fact, the writ petitions have been entertained by this Court and continue to be entertained as there is no statement made by the Union as to the early constitution of the Tribunal.

5. The State of U.P. on its part pleads helplessness, as under the Act, the Union has to constitute the Tribunal and the role of the State is limited to making a proposal, which proposal is claimed to have already been made.

In fact, the proposal made itself gave rise to an order by this Court, at Lucknow and another order passed by a division bench at Allahabad. That and other matters are now engaging attention of a Full Bench of this Court which has been constituted upon a recent order passed by yet another division bench of this Court.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of 6,163 first appeals instituted under the Act upto 15.07.2019, 480 (i.e. 7.8%) arise from areas falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court (under the Amalgamation Order) whereas 5,683 (i.e. 92.2%) appeals arose from areas falling within the jurisdiction of this Court, at Allahabad. It has also been submitted that out 2,339 first appeals that have been decided, only 85 (i.e. 3.6%) arose within the districts falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench whereas the balance 2,254 (i.e. 96.4%) arose within the areas falling under the jurisdiction of this Court, at Allahabad.

7. According to learned counsel for the petitioners that factor alone should decide the seat of the Tribunal proposed to be established. It has been further submitted that in terms of amalgamation order, the remedy of appeal should be provided by the constituting the Tribunal in such a manner as the fundamental aspect of the amalgamation order providing for clear cut definition and delineation of the jurisdiction of the Court sitting at Allahabad and Lucknow, is maintained and preserved.

8. Though initially certain orders had been passed in the present proceedings requiring the State and the Union to make their stand known with respect to constitution of the Tribunal, at present, in view of the subsequent developments noted above and cognizance having been taken by the division bench of this Court whereupon a Full Bench has been constituted, no further orders are required to be passed in the present proceedings with respect to constitution of the Tribunal.

9. The present writ petitions would be remain entertained, in absence of the Tribunal.

10. List these cases along with Writ Tax Nos. 1 of 2019, 893 of 2019, 671 of 2019, 169 of 2019, 842 of 2019, 252 of 2019, 242 of 2019, 578 of 2019, 574 of 2019, 920 of 2019, 897 of 2019, 916 of 2019, 901 of 2019, 1129 of 2018, 1226 of 2018, 804 of 2019, 805 of 2019, 808 of 2019 and 1635 of 2018 on 18.09.2019.”

3. Shri Krishnaji Shukla, learned Central Government Counsel, has brought on record copy of a communication dated 07.09.2019 issued by the Director, GST Council Secretariat.

The same has been marked as ‘X’ and retained on record. By that, it has been stated that the next meeting of the GST Council is proposed to be held on 20th of this month, wherein, by way of Agenda Item (ii), the said Council may consider constitution of regional and area Benches in Uttar Pradesh. Also, he would submit that opinion of the Law Ministry has been sought with respect to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (sitting at Lucknow) in Public Interest Litigation No. 6800 of 2019.

4. In such facts, it appears proper that the present petition alongwith connected matters may remain provisionally maintained by this Court.

5. Accordingly, list again on 16 October 2019, by which date, Shri Shukla may inform the Court of the decision, if any, taken in the meeting of the GST Council, as noted above, with respect to the constitution of the regional or area Benches in the State of U.P. It is further expected that the district wise details of case filing, as has been brought on record by the State of Uttar Pradesh, would be a matter to be placed before the GST Council.