9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1083 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act of 2017 available - submission of appellant is that Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Act of 2017 start with a non obstante clause - HELD THAT - Sub-Section (1) of Section 107 of the Central Act of 2017 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act or the State Goods and Services Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an Adjudicating Authority may appeal to the Appellate Authority within the time specified therein - We fail to understand how the non obstante Clauses in both Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Act of 2017, will affect the remedy of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Act of 2017, in any manner, in as much as, Section 107 of the Central Act of 2017, provides for an appeal against any decision or order. Section 121 of the Central Act of 2017, which starts with a non obstante clause provides that in certain category of cases, no appeal shall lie - However, it is not permissible to read something in Section 121 of the Central Act of 2017, which is not expressly provided by the Legislature. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to notice of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017, Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Availability of remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. Analysis: The appellant challenged the notice of tax and penalty under various Acts, claiming that the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, was not available due to the non obstante clauses in Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Act. The appellant argued that the non obstante clauses in Sections 129 and 130 would affect the remedy of appeal under Section 107. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that Section 107 allows for an appeal against any decision or order, and Section 121 of the Central Act, which limits appeals in certain cases, does not apply to the order in question. The appellant suggested a reading of Section 121 to apply only to a specific chapter, but the Court held that such an interpretation was not permissible without express legislative provision. The Court concurred with the Single Judge's view that the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Act was indeed available to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the time granted to prefer the appeal was extended by four weeks. The Court clarified that all contentions raised on the merits of the appeal were not considered in this judgment. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the availability of the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, rejecting the appellant's argument regarding the impact of non obstante clauses in other sections. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legislative provisions without reading additional meanings into them.
|
