9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 45 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - statutory remedy available to the petitioner or not - Seizure order - appealable order or not - HELD THAT - Against the said order of the Appellate Authority, the statutory remedy provided under the statute is available to the petitioner, under Section 112 of the Act by approaching before the Appellate Tribunal, as against the order passed in appeal under Section 107 of the Act - This is what has been held by the Coordinate Bench of Kerala High Court in M/S. PODARAN FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF KERALA, THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER (SQUAD NO. I) , THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT 2021 (1) TMI 552 - KERALA HIGH COURT wherein, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as against the order passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act, for seizure of the goods, the Kerala High Court has considered the said aspect and has held that against the said appellate order, the only remedy, which would be available to the petitioner, would be to approach the Appellate Tribunal. In that eventuality, the Court has held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as against the appellate order passed against the order of seizure under Section 129 (3), would not be maintainable. The Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty left open for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal against the appellate order under Section 112 of the Act
Issues:
Challenge to order of seizure under Section 129 (3) of Uttarakhand G.S.T. Act. Dismissal of appeal under Section 107 by Appellate Authority. Availability of statutory remedy under Section 112 before Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order of seizure under Section 129 (3) of the Uttarakhand G.S.T. Act, which allows the competent authority to seize goods or conveyances after issuing a notice under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. An appeal under Section 107 of the Act was filed by the petitioner, but it was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 27th January, 2021. The petitioner then sought a remedy under Section 112 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal. The Coordinate Bench of Kerala High Court, in a similar case, held that the only available remedy against an appellate order on seizure under Section 129 (3) is to approach the Appellate Tribunal. The Kerala High Court emphasized that detention of goods and vehicles cannot be justified unless there is a possibility of tax evasion. The authority with detention powers under a tax statute must strictly construe the provisions authorizing detention, considering the citizen's constitutional rights. Fair implementation of tax laws is crucial for the rule of law in a republic. The introduction of GST in India marked a significant change in indirect tax collection, requiring both the Centre and States to act in harmony based on GST Council recommendations. The High Court ruled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against an appellate order on seizure under Section 129 (3). Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Act. The judgment's applicability is subject to the condition that the State has constituted the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of Section 110 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. If the Tribunal has not been constituted, the petitioner can file an application before the Court.
|
