9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 512 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order demonstrates calculation on the basis of which the levy is made - HELD THAT - On perusal of impugned order and also the Notification No. 4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 25 January, 2018 which is placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is opined that the contentions as urged by the petitioner need to be asserted and urged by taking recourse of the appellate remedy as available under section 107 of the MGST Act. It may not be possible for this Court to consider the contentions of the petitioner on examining the issues including the agreement, rates as also other relevant consideration for determination of the value of the development as undertaken by the petitioner and/or the tenements sold/allotted. All these are issues which would require examining such material and for which appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to take recourse of the appellate remedy as available. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
The primary grievance against the impugned order dated 13 May, 2022 passed by respondent no. 1-State Tax Officer under section 73 of the MGST Act demanding tax from the petitioner in relation to a construction project involving slums redevelopment. The petitioner contends that the lack of calculation basis in the notice and order hinders the effectiveness of an appeal as a remedy. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Lack of Calculation Basis in the Impugned Order The petitioner challenged the order demanding tax, citing the absence of a clear calculation basis in both the show cause notice and the impugned order. The High Court examined the impugned order along with Notification No. 4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) to assess the petitioner's contentions. The Court opined that the petitioner's concerns regarding the calculation method and valuation of the development project should be addressed through the appellate remedy provided under section 107 of the MGST Act. The Court noted that a detailed examination of the agreement, rates, and other relevant factors for determining the project's value would be necessary, which could not be adequately addressed in the present petition. Therefore, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the appellate remedy. Issue 2: Liberty to File Appeal The High Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the judgment date, ensuring that the appeal would be considered on its merits without objections regarding limitation. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions raised by the parties in the present petition would be kept open for consideration during the appeal process. Additionally, the petitioner was granted the liberty to file the appeal offline if online filing was not feasible due to any limitations. Issue 3: Stay on Coercive Action To facilitate the petitioner's appeal filing within the specified timeframe, the High Court directed that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner until the appeal was filed. This measure aimed to protect the petitioner from any adverse actions while pursuing the appellate remedy. In conclusion, the High Court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the lack of calculation basis in the impugned order by directing the petitioner to seek recourse through the appellate remedy under the MGST Act. The judgment granted the petitioner the opportunity to file an appeal within a specified timeframe, ensuring a fair consideration of the case without objections on limitation. Additionally, the Court provided protection to the petitioner by staying coercive actions until the appeal process was initiated.
|
