9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 405 - HC - GSTAbeyance of Recovery proceedings - stay of encashment of the bank guarantee furnished by him as security before the respondents - HELD THAT - On the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for maintaining Ext.P8 appeal before the 5th respondent, within two weeks from today, the 5th respondent shall proceed to consider and pass orders on the said application preferred by the petitioner within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner - To enable the petitioner to thereafter pursue his appellate remedy before the 5th respondent, the recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P7 order, including steps to encash Ext.P6 bank guarantee, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 5th respondent as directed and the orders are communicated to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Challenge against the imposition of tax and penalty under the IGST Act. 2. Appeal for a stay of encashment of the bank guarantee. 3. Exemption from payment of pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax and cess. 4. Direction sought for the consideration of stay application and keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance. Issue 1: Challenge against the imposition of tax and penalty under the IGST Act The petitioner challenged an order imposing tax and penalty under the IGST Act. The petitioner filed an appeal seeking a stay of encashment of the bank guarantee provided as security. The petitioner contended that due to the bank guarantee, they should be exempt from paying the pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and cess. The prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the 5th respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay application along with the appeal promptly and to halt recovery proceedings until the 5th respondent's decision. Issue 2: Appeal for a stay of encashment of the bank guarantee The petitioner appealed for a stay on the encashment of the bank guarantee furnished as security. The High Court directed that if the petitioner pays 10% of the disputed tax within two weeks, the 5th respondent should consider and decide on the stay application within a month after hearing the petitioner. This decision aimed to allow the petitioner to pursue their appellate remedy without immediate encashment of the bank guarantee. Issue 3: Exemption from payment of pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax and cess The petitioner sought exemption from paying the pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and cess, citing the bank guarantee already provided as security. The court directed the petitioner to pay the 10% of the disputed tax within two weeks to maintain the appeal before the 5th respondent, emphasizing the importance of complying with this condition. Issue 4: Direction sought for the consideration of stay application and keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance The court directed the 5th respondent to promptly consider and decide on the stay application after the petitioner pays the required amount. It was further ordered that recovery proceedings, including the encashment of the bank guarantee, should be put on hold until the 5th respondent's decision is communicated to the petitioner. This decision aimed to ensure a fair process for the petitioner while maintaining the security of the disputed amount.
|
