9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 702 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - It is submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the tax and by not accepting the submissions and explanations, it amounts to double taxation which is not permissible - HELD THAT - The petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the GST Tribunal in terms of Section 112 of the U.P. GST Act, however, till date the Tribunal has yet not been constituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh and in this view of the matter, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition before this Court. The matter requires consideration - the instant petition is admitted. List this matter on 28.02.2022.
Issues:
1. Challenge to appellate order and related orders 2. Discrepancy in GST returns for financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 3. Allegation of double taxation 4. Delay in constitution of GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh Analysis: 1. The petitioner has challenged the appellate order dated 26.10.2021 and other related orders in the High Court. The petitioner, engaged in infrastructural contracts in Uttar Pradesh, declared a turnover in GST returns for the financial year 2017-18. However, discrepancies arose due to the timing of bill realization spanning two financial years, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The authorities issued notices which were duly replied to, explaining the situation where payments related to 2017-18 were received in 2018-19, as per Section 37(9) proviso. Despite explanations and tax deposits made by the petitioner, the authorities allegedly treated the payments incorrectly, leading to potential double taxation. 2. The petitioner highlighted the issue of double taxation due to the authorities' failure to consider the timing of payments and reconciliation of bills across financial years. The petitioner emphasized that the tax had already been paid, and the discrepancy should not result in additional tax liability. Furthermore, the petitioner pointed out the unavailability of the GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, preventing them from seeking redress through the statutory appeal process under Section 112 of the U.P. GST Act. This situation compelled the petitioner to approach the High Court through a writ petition. 3. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel and the gravity of the issues raised regarding potential double taxation and the absence of a functional GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, the High Court admitted the petition for further consideration. The Court directed the State to file a counter affidavit within four weeks and allowed the petitioner two weeks to file a rejoinder affidavit. The matter was listed for further hearing on 28.02.2022. As an interim measure, the Court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner if they provide a valuable security amount to the Assessing Officer within two weeks. 4. The delay in constituting the GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh has further complicated the petitioner's situation, as the statutory appeal route remains unavailable. The Court's intervention through the writ petition becomes crucial in addressing the issues of double taxation and procedural challenges arising from the discrepancy in GST returns and the unavailability of the appellate forum. The interim relief granted by the Court aims to protect the petitioner from immediate coercive actions while the matter undergoes further judicial review.
|
