2020 (12) TMI 482 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy of petition - Assessment of GST - HELD THAT - This Court disposes of the instant writ petition, with a direction to the writ petitioner, to, avail the statutory remedy of its appealing against the orders of assessment. Further more, it is also directed that the bank concerned shall forthwith release into the accounts of the statutory authority concerned, 10% of the disputed sums of tax. Further more, it is also directed that the writ petitioner shall deposit the entire quantum of admitted liabilities towards tax, before the statutory authority concerned, in contemporaneity, of, its maintaining the statutory appeal. It is open for the writ petitioner, to, agitate before the statutory authority concerned, the validity of the order, if any, made orally or in writing, to the Bank concerned, and, wherethrough the bank(s) account of the writ petitioner stand(s) frozen, for therethroughs hence ensuring realizations of sums of tax determined against it, under the afore Annexures - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment orders challenged through writ petition - Availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Requirement to deposit 10% of disputed tax sums and admitted tax liability for filing appeal - Bank accounts frozen hindering appeal process - Direction to avail statutory remedy and deposit required amounts - Timeline for appeal decision by statutory authority.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the challenge of assessment orders related to GST levies through a writ petition. The court highlighted the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court noted that the writ petitioner had not convincingly shown that the alternative remedy was not suitable or effective. The exception to this rule was if there were palpable breaches by the assessing authority regarding the statutory provisions on GST levy, making the statutory remedy inefficacious. Consequently, the court deemed the writ petition not maintainable in this case.

The court addressed the requirement for the writ petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax sums and the entire admitted tax liability to file a valid appeal against the assessment orders. The petitioner argued that the frozen bank accounts hindered complying with this requirement, making the alternative remedy ineffective. The Sr. Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents, informed the court that the respondents had no objection to the bank releasing 10% of the disputed sums into the respondent's account to meet the statutory condition.

Based on the submissions, the court disposed of the writ petition and directed the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by filing an appeal against the assessment orders. Additionally, the court ordered the bank to release 10% of the disputed tax sums into the respondent's account and instructed the petitioner to deposit the entire admitted tax liability before filing the appeal. The court allowed the petitioner to challenge any oral or written orders to freeze the bank accounts before the statutory authority to facilitate tax realization.

Furthermore, the court set a timeline for the appeal process, directing the petitioner to file the appeal within two weeks and the statutory authority to decide on the appeal within four weeks thereafter. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly, concluding the judgment.