2021 (7) TMI 867 - HC - GST

Refund of deposited amount - petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed amount of tax as a pre-condition for filing the appeal - HELD THAT - The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an additional 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in compliance of the requirements under Section 112 (8) of UP GST Act. List for hearing in the second week of February, 2020.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of order under GST Act, refund of deposited amount, constitution of Appellate Tribunal, compliance with Section 112 (8) of the Act, imposition of penalty and tax.

Validity of Order under GST Act:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 26.3.2021 passed by respondent no.2 under Appeal No.GST 837/2019, seeking a refund and claiming the imposition of penalty and tax as illegal. The petitioner contended that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the transaction in question. The court entertained the petition and directed the Revenue to file a counter affidavit within eight weeks.

Constitution of Appellate Tribunal:
The petitioner highlighted the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the reason for approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-condition for filing the appeal and was willing to deposit an additional 20% of the remaining amount in compliance with Section 112 (8) of the Act. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount within three weeks, staying recovery proceedings for the balance amount until the petition's disposal.

Compliance with Section 112 (8) of the Act:
The petitioner expressed readiness to comply with Section 112 (8) by depositing an additional 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount. The court mandated the petitioner to deposit this amount within three weeks, emphasizing the stay on recovery proceedings until the petition's resolution.

Imposition of Penalty and Tax:
The petitioner contended that the imposition of penalty and tax was unjustified, claiming the transaction in question was not subject to the Act's provisions. The court acknowledged the petitioner's submission and allowed the petition to proceed, directing the Revenue to respond within the stipulated timeline.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, addressing the validity of the order under the GST Act, the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, compliance with Section 112 (8) of the Act, and the imposition of penalty and tax.