9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 149 - HC - GSTApplication for stay of the impugned order - VAT paid under the pre-GST regime - claim for input tax credit - Held that - As an interim arrangement, we direct the petitioner to deposit of ₹ 5,11,60,450/- with the respondent authorities within 3 weeks from today. On the deposit being made, the same would be converted into an interest bearing FDR for a period of nine months. The FDR amount and the interest accrued thereon would abide by further orders of this Court - It is made clear that this is only an interim arrangement and the Court has not expressed any firm and final view. List on 19.02.2019.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for exemption 2. Appealability of the impugned order 3. Application for impleadment 4. Application for stay of the impugned order Analysis: 1. The Court allowed exemption subject to exceptions for an application. The application was disposed of. 2. The counsel for the respondent stated that the impugned order was not appealable. The Court issued a notice returnable on 19.02.2019. 3. Another application for impleadment was made, and the Court issued a notice returnable on 19.02.2019 for this as well. 4. The main issue in this judgment was regarding an application for stay of the impugned order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner had paid VAT under the pre-GST regime and claimed input tax credit under the post-GST regime. The petitioner had paid a significant amount in cash and through input tax credit. The total amount collected from VAT/buyers under the GST regime was also highlighted. The petitioner had offered to pay a specific amount to resolve the issue with the customers. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a certain amount with the respondent authorities within three weeks, which would be converted into an interest-bearing FDR for a specified period. This arrangement was deemed interim, and the Court emphasized that no firm and final view had been expressed. The respondents were given a timeline to file a reply, followed by a rejoinder if necessary. The case was listed for further proceedings on 19.02.2019.
|
