2023 (9) TMI 993 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - rejection of appeal filed 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 the 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.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to 1st appellate order under GST Act, delay in constituting Second Appellate Tribunal, liability to pay tax and penalty.

Summary:

Challenge to 1st appellate order under GST Act:
The writ petition was filed challenging the 1st appellate order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal), Territorial Range, Cuttack-I, Cuttack. The petitioner contended that the appeal was not admitted by the authority as it was in contravention of subsections (1) & (4) of Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that they are not liable to pay the tax and penalty, and since the Second Appellate Tribunal had not yet been constituted, the High Court should entertain the writ petition.

Delay in constituting Second Appellate Tribunal:
The delay in constituting the Second Appellate Tribunal was highlighted as a key issue in the case. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the first appellate authority. The counsel for the petitioner argued that due to the absence of the Second Appellate Tribunal, the High Court should entertain the writ petition.

Liability to pay tax and penalty:
The Standing Counsel for Revenue contended that there was a delay in preferring the appeal, and the Court may not be able to condone the delay beyond four months. It was argued that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax and should deposit the entire tax demand within four weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was informed that to avail the remedy of appealing before the Second Appellate Tribunal, they would need to pay 20% of the balance disputed tax.

This matter was listed along with another case for further proceedings, and an interim measure was granted, staying the rest of the tax demand during the pendency of the writ petition, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire tax demand within the specified period.