Facts of the Case

The Union of India and two other petitioners approached the Gauhati High Court by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenged an order dated 20 May 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, in O.A. No. 111/2020.

The proceedings in O.A. No. 111/2020 were still pending before the Tribunal. The order challenged before the High Court was an interim order. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the learned Senior Central Government Counsel had appeared and accepted notice.

While passing the interim order, the Tribunal expressly granted liberty to the respondent before it to seek modification or vacation of the interim order. Despite the availability of this remedy before the Tribunal, the petitioners invoked the supervisory and writ jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising before the Gauhati High Court were:

  1. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal when the original proceedings remained pending before the Tribunal.
  2. Whether interference by the High Court was warranted when the Tribunal itself had expressly granted liberty to seek modification or vacation of the interim order.
  3. Whether the petitioners should first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an appropriate application for modification or vacation of the interim order.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners, represented by learned counsel Mr. S.C. Keyal, challenged the order dated 20 May 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 111/2020 by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners sought interference by the Gauhati High Court with the impugned interim order.

Important Note: The brief High Court order does not separately record or elaborate any further detailed factual, legal, or merits-based submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Accordingly, no additional argument has been attributed to the petitioners beyond what is expressly reflected in the judicial order.

Respondent’s Arguments

The High Court’s order does not separately record any detailed arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent, Piyush Choudhary.

The judgment records the procedural position that the proceedings in O.A. No. 111/2020 were pending before the Tribunal and that, while passing the interim order, the Tribunal had expressly granted liberty to seek modification or vacation of that interim order.

Important Note: Since no separate detailed respondent-side submissions are reproduced in the order, no additional arguments have been inferred or introduced.

Court Order / Findings

The Gauhati High Court observed that the proceedings in O.A. No. 111/2020 were still pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Court further noted that the impugned order was an interim order and that the Tribunal had clearly granted liberty to seek modification or vacation of the interim order.

In view of this express liberty granted by the Tribunal, the High Court held that it did not consider it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court left it open to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal seeking modification or vacation of the interim order.

The Court further directed that, if any such application were filed, the Tribunal should consider the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

The High Court also clarified that disposal of the writ petition would not prejudice the rights of either party before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the petition was not entertained and stood dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

Important Clarification

The Gauhati High Court did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the dispute pending in O.A. No. 111/2020.

The dismissal of the writ petition was based on the procedural position that:

  • the original proceedings remained pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal;
  • the challenged order was only an interim order;
  • the Tribunal had expressly granted liberty to seek modification or vacation of that interim order; and
  • the petitioners could avail themselves of that remedy before the Tribunal.

The High Court expressly protected the rights of both parties by clarifying that disposal of the writ petition would not prejudice either party before the Tribunal.

Therefore, the order should not be construed as a final determination of the merits of the underlying service dispute.

Sections / Constitutional Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Power of superintendence of High Courts over courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction.

Central Administrative Tribunal Proceedings – O.A. No. 111/2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench.

Note: No specific section of the CGST Act, 2017 or any other taxation statute is mentioned as a provision directly adjudicated in this brief High Court order.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783153647_854compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.