9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 439 - HC - GSTDismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner - challenge to impugned order and the consequent summary of demand in Form GST APL-04 - HELD THAT - These petitions may be disposed of permitting the petitioners to file an appeal as and when the president or the State President as the case may be enters office of the appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. This preposition has not been disputed by any of the parties appearing in the writ petitions. Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order in Appeal Case No. 366/GST/2023 and summary of demand in Form GST APL-04 dated 11.10.2023; Relief sought by the petitioner; Dismissal of appeal by Appellate Authority; Requirement of deposit for filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal; Disposal of similar issues by other High Courts; Directions for filing an appeal once the President of the Appellate Tribunal is appointed. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 in Appeal Case No. 366/GST/2023 and the consequent summary of demand in Form GST APL-04 dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including setting aside the impugned order and all related actions. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in sales and purchase, was aggrieved by an order imposing tax, interest, and penalty on the ground of claiming excess Input Tax Credit. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.09.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that 20% tax deposit is required to file an appeal before the appellate tribunal, citing a judgment in a related matter. The State counsel supported this submission. The court noted similar issues disposed of by other High Courts, such as the Patna High Court and Bombay High Court, which allowed filing of appeals once the President of the Appellate Tribunal is appointed. In light of the judgments of the Patna and Bombay High Courts, the present petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file an appeal once the President of the Appellate Tribunal is appointed. The petitioner must deposit 20% of the disputed amount within 30 days from the receipt of the court's order. The statutory stay under Section 112(9) of the Act would remain in operation until the appeal is decided. Failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period would allow the state to proceed with recovery. The court clarified that if the required amount for filing an appeal is not deposited by the petitioner, the order would not be beneficial to them. The judgment provided a clear direction for the petitioner to follow once the conditions are met for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues, arguments presented, court's considerations, and the final directions provided in the judgment.
|
