2022 (2) TMI 125 - HC - GST

Levy of IGST - petitioner submitted that the manner in which the order has been passed is patently illegal and even the consideration is not in accordance with law - HELD THAT - In view of the issues being primarily based on factual aspects, which have to be verified from the records or upon which evidence has to be adduced, in the considered opinion of the Court, under its prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same may not be the proper forum for such adjudication. Moreover, as has rightly been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, the order being appealable, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that the petitioner may approach the Appellate Forum against the order impugned. Since the limitation for filing such appeal has expired, but in view of the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court extending the limitation period in such matters, the period for filing the appeal still survives. The Court does not find any occasion to allow these Interlocutory Applications as no purpose would be served since the Court is permitting the petitioner to move the appellate authority, before whom all issues can be agitated and, depending on what order is passed by the appellate authority, consequences shall follow - Application disposed off.

Issues Involved:
Petition to set aside tax imposition under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on alleged illegal proceedings and lack of consideration in accordance with law and factual aspects. Preliminary objection raised regarding appealability of the order and suggestion to approach the Appellate Forum. Interlocutory Applications filed for suspension of the impugned order, impleading proposed respondents, and amending the prayer in the main writ petition.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to challenge the proceedings dated 29.07.2021 imposing tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging that the order was passed illegally and without proper consideration in line with the factual aspects of the case. The petitioner argued that the order was not in accordance with the law.

2. The Court noted that both the petitioner and the respondents presented various factual aspects related to the case, but the Court deemed it unnecessary to delve into these factual details as the issues were primarily based on factual aspects that needed verification from records or evidence adduced. The Court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court's prerogative writ jurisdiction may not be the proper forum for adjudicating such issues.

3. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the matter could be appealed before the Appellate Authority. They argued that the order under challenge was well-discussed on both factual and legal grounds, based on the materials presented by the petitioner before the authority. The Court acknowledged the appealability of the order and disposed of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to approach the Appellate Forum against the impugned order.

4. The petitioner filed several Interlocutory Applications seeking suspension of the impugned order, impleading proposed respondents, and amending the prayer in the main writ petition. However, the Court found no reason to allow these applications, as the petitioner was permitted to address all issues before the Appellate Authority, where the appropriate adjudication could take place based on the authority's decision.

5. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, emphasizing that the petitioner should move the appellate forum within three weeks from the judgment date. The Court assured that if the petitioner filed an appeal within the stipulated time, the appellate authority would consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits, in accordance with the law.

This comprehensive analysis covers the legal judgment's key aspects, including the challenges raised by the petitioner, the Court's considerations, the respondents' objections, and the Court's directions regarding further legal recourse through the Appellate Forum.

← Previous Next →