2020 (12) TMI 233 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - petitioners were issued summon and simultaneously subjected to intimation by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax wherein the amount payable by the petitioner was determined - Section 107 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - It being not disputed that the order is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and merely because the petitioner has to pre-deposit, therefore, instead of appeal present petition is filed, we are not inclined to cause indulgence. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of intimation by Assistant Commissioner under GST Act.
2. Appealability of the final order under Section 107 of CGST Act.
3. Compliance with pre-deposit requirements for filing an appeal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, raised a grievance against being simultaneously subjected to summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act and an intimation by the Assistant Commissioner for determining the payable amount. The petitioner argued that the intimation was illegal when compared to a specific letter issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The court noted the contentions and the circumstances surrounding the intimation.

2. The court observed that the petitioner had received a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Madhya Pradesh GST Act, leading to a final order on a specific date. It was acknowledged that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court highlighted the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of Section 107, emphasizing the requirement for payment of a part of the amount in dispute as a pre-deposit for filing an appeal.

3. Given the legislative mandate regarding pre-deposit requirements for appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the legislative command should not be disregarded by allowing the petition to proceed without fulfilling the pre-deposit conditions. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the dismissal would not prejudice the petitioner's ability to invoke Section 107 for filing an appeal in the future.