9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 129 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - no second appellate forum - petitioner has already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the first appellate authority - rejection under sub-Section (1) of Section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing entire tax demand within a period of four weeks from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. Application disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to 1st appellate order under GST Act, delay in constituting 2nd appellate tribunal, liability to pay tax and penalty, condonation of delay in appeal filing, interim relief for depositing tax demand.
The petitioner challenged the 1st appellate order dated 31.01.2023 under the GST Act, contending that it was not admitted due to contravention of specific sections. The petitioner argued against liability for tax and penalty, highlighting the absence of a constituted 2nd appellate tribunal for further appeal. The counsel for the petitioner emphasized the need for the writ petition due to the delay in constituting the 2nd appellate tribunal, despite the availability of a second appeal. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the tax amount demanded before the first appellate authority, seeking relief from the court in the absence of a second appellate forum. On the other hand, the Revenue's Standing Counsel argued against condonation of delay in appeal filing beyond four months, citing specific limitations under the law. The counsel contended that the petitioner was liable to pay the tax and proposed conditions for availing the remedy through the 2nd appellate tribunal, including the payment of a balance disputed tax. The court issued notice to the opposite parties and directed the Addl. Standing counsel to respond within the specified timeline. An interim measure was granted to the petitioner, allowing for the deposit of the entire tax demand within four weeks to stay the remaining demand during the writ petition's pendency. The court disposed of the interim application and scheduled the matter for further proceedings along with another related case.
|
