9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 369 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - alternative and efficacious remedy of an appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT - The petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed on 10.12.2020, the writ petition has been filed on 25.02.2021, within three months from the date of the order passed by the Authority. Since under Section 107 sub-clause 4, the period of limitation has been prescribed for three months and he has filed the writ petition before this Court, he submitted that the Appellate Authority can dispose of the appeal on merits without going to the limitation. If the petitioner files an appeal before the Appellate Authority within six weeks from today, the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law without going to the limitation aspect - Pettion disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to notice of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the notice of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The order of demand of tax and penalty was passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. He relied on a previous order of the Division Bench of the Court and sought dismissal of the appeal on this ground. The counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this legal position. The Court noted that since the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal available, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed on a specific date, and the writ petition was filed within three months from that date, which is the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107(4). The petitioner requested that the Appellate Authority should decide the appeal on merits without considering the limitation aspect. The Court, considering this, directed that if the petitioner files an appeal before the Appellate Authority within six weeks, the Authority should decide the appeal on merits in accordance with the law without being concerned with the limitation aspect. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in light of this direction. In conclusion, the Court emphasized that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal available before the Appellate Authority, and therefore, the writ petition challenging the notice of tax and penalty is not maintainable. However, recognizing the timely filing of the writ petition within the prescribed limitation period, the Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within six weeks, directing the Authority to decide the appeal on merits without considering the limitation aspect. This approach ensures that the petitioner's rights are protected while following the legal procedures set out in the relevant statutes.
|
