9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 998 - Commissioner - GSTValidity of Provisional Release Order - case of appellant is that while passing the impugned order the releasing authority was required to follow the judgments of various courts under judicial discipline, the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of judicial discipline - HELD THAT - The investigation in the matter is still under process as per letter C.No. DGGSTI/JZU/INT/CE/02/2017/3256 dated 22.07.2019 received from Joint Director, DGGI, Jaipur and appeal has been filed only against the conditions imposed for provisional release. The various courts order submitted by the appellant is not squarely covered in the instant matter. The Provisional Release Order passed by the Releasing Authority is as per law; as the order has been rightly passed by the Releasing Authority and is in accordance with the provisions of sub-section(6) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
- Appeal against Provisional Release Order under Section 107 of the CGST Act - Challenge to conditions imposed on provisional release - Determination of Bank Guarantee amount - Compliance with judicial discipline in passing the impugned order Analysis: 1. Appeal against Provisional Release Order: The appeal was filed by M/s Singhal's Flexipack against the Provisional Release Order issued under C.No. IV(6)138/AE/JPR/2017/1484 dated 29.11.2017. The appellant challenged the conditions imposed on the provisional release, specifically regarding the determination of the Bank Guarantee amount. 2. Challenge to Conditions Imposed: The appellant contended that the Bank Guarantee amount was determined contrary to the provisions of Section 74(5) and Section 74(8) of the CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, it was argued that the releasing authority failed to follow judicial discipline while passing the impugned order. The appellant submitted various court judgments to support this argument and requested a modification of the order. 3. Determination of Bank Guarantee Amount: The Bank Guarantee amount was set at ?15,80,176, equivalent to the tax and penalty payable as per Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The appellant challenged this determination, citing provisions of the CGST Act and seeking a revision based on legal grounds. 4. Compliance with Judicial Discipline: The appellant raised concerns about the lack of adherence to judicial discipline in passing the impugned order. Various court judgments were cited to emphasize the importance of following established legal principles and precedents. The appellant's request for a review based on judicial discipline was a key aspect of the appeal. 5. Judicial Decision: After a personal hearing and careful consideration of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the investigation was ongoing and the appeal was solely against the conditions of provisional release. It was noted that the court orders cited by the appellant did not directly apply to the case at hand. Consequently, no interference in the impugned order was deemed necessary. 6. Legal Compliance: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Provisional Release Order, stating that it was passed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017. The order was deemed lawful and in compliance with the relevant legal framework, leading to the decision of no interference against the provisional release order. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised in the appeal, the legal arguments presented by the appellant, and the final decision rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to the Provisional Release Order under the CGST Act.
|
