2020 (1) TMI 515 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - pre-condition for filing the appeal - HELD THAT - While filing first appeal, the petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed amount of tax as a pre-condition for filing the appeal - In respect of the remaining amount, he had furnished security. The petition is entertained.

Summary

Issues:
1. Constitution of Appellate Tribunal under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Deposit of 10% of disputed tax amount for filing appeal.
3. Furnishing security for the remaining amount.
4. Compliance with Section 112 (8) of the Act.
5. Allegation of illegal imposition of penalty and tax.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner had no option but to seek relief from the High Court through a writ petition. The absence of the Appellate Tribunal necessitated this approach to address the issues at hand.

2. It was highlighted that when filing the initial appeal, the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount as a prerequisite. This action was taken in accordance with the legal requirements for initiating the appeal process, showcasing the petitioner's compliance with the procedural aspects of the law.

3. Additionally, the petitioner had provided security for the remaining disputed tax amount, demonstrating a proactive approach to fulfilling the necessary obligations in the legal proceedings. This step was crucial in ensuring the orderly progression of the appeal process.

4. The counsel further assured the court that the petitioner was prepared to deposit an additional 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount, as mandated by Section 112 (8) of the Act. This commitment indicated the petitioner's willingness to adhere to the statutory provisions and fulfill the financial requirements stipulated by the law.

5. Lastly, the petitioner contended that the transaction in question did not fall under the purview of the Act, implying that the imposition of penalties and taxes was unjustified and illegal. This argument raised a critical issue regarding the applicability of the legal provisions to the specific circumstances of the case, warranting a thorough examination by the court.

In conclusion, the High Court entertained the petition, directing the Revenue to file a counter affidavit within three weeks. The court scheduled a hearing for the second week of February 2020. Furthermore, the petitioner was instructed to deposit 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount in compliance with Section 112 (8) of the Act, with a stay on recovery proceedings for the balance amount until the resolution of the petition.