All High Courts Equal, Can't Encourage Practice Of Transferring Matters From Other HCs To One HC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally expressed that it cannot encourage the practice of transferring petitions from High Courts to one particular High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the transfer petitions filed by turf clubs seeking to consolidate the petitions pending in High Courts against the levy of Goods and Services Tax to any one High Court.

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, for the petitioners, submitted that the GST Act has been amended to make horse racing and any supplier of actionable claims liable to tax. Hence, any provider of a platform for actionable claim is deemed to be supplier and made liable to pay duty. He explained that petitions are pending in four High Courts challenging the validity of the GST levy. He requested that the petitions be transferred to one High Court.

The bench however expressed disinclination. "This can lead to a lot of malpractices," CJI Kant said, expressing concerns about 'forum shopping'.

The CJI said that the inconvenience of advocates in going to many High Courts cannot be a ground for transfer. He pointed out that with VC facilities, lawyers can appear virtually as well.

Datar said that if different High Courts are taking different views with respect to a central law, it will lead to complications. He said that the petitioners are not choosing any particular Court and said that the Supreme Court may transfer to any High Cour.

Even if the High Courts are taking different views on the matter, that is not a problem as such, the bench expressed. "We proceed on the premise that there will be difference of opinion among the High Courts. Let it be. The ultimate arbiter will be the Supreme Court," CJI Kant said.

Datar said that there are various instances of the Supreme Court transferring petitions in various High Courts to one particular High Court. The challenge to UAPA provisions, anti-profiteering provisions etc, were cited as examples.

The bench was not persuaded. "This will give a wrong impression that certain High Courts are a mini Supreme Court," CJI Kant said. "All High Courts are equal. Some High Courts cannot be more equal than other High Courts. We do not encourage that," Justice Bagchi added.

Justice Nagarathna said that there was enough talent in the High Courts to decide the matter.

As the bench expressed dissatisfaction, Datar chose to withdraw the petition. He clarified that it was no attempt at forum shopping, and that the petitioners were only following the past practice of transferring similar matters to one Court.

Case : ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB Vs UNION OF INDIA | D No. 30664/2024