9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 783 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - non-constitution of appellate forum - petitioner has already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the first appellate authority - condonation of delay in preferring appeal - HLED THAT - Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing entire tax demand within a period of fifteen days from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. List this matter along with W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 on the date fixed therein.
Issues involved: Challenge to 1st appellate order under GST Act, delay in constituting 2nd appellate tribunal, liability to pay tax and penalty.
Summary: The High Court of Orissa entertained a writ petition challenging the 1st appellate order under the GST Act, as the 2nd Appellate Tribunal had not yet been constituted. The petitioner contested that they were not liable to pay the tax and penalty, having already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the 1st appellate authority. The Court considered the delay in preferring the appeal and the requirement to pay the balance disputed tax for consideration by the 2nd appellate tribunal. The Standing Counsel argued for the petitioner's liability to pay the tax and penalty. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the entire tax demand within fifteen days as an interim measure, with the rest of the demand stayed during the writ petition's pendency. The Court noted that the delay in constituting the 2nd appellate tribunal had led to the entertainment of the writ petition challenging the 1st appellate order under the GST Act. The petitioner's contention of not being liable to pay the tax and penalty was considered, along with the requirement to deposit 10% of the demanded tax amount before the 1st appellate authority. The Standing Counsel argued for the petitioner's liability to pay the tax and penalty, emphasizing the need to pay the balance disputed tax for consideration by the 2nd appellate tribunal. The Court acknowledged the delay in constituting the 2nd appellate tribunal, leading to the entertainment of the writ petition challenging the 1st appellate order under the GST Act. The petitioner's argument against liability to pay the tax and penalty was considered, with the requirement to deposit 10% of the demanded tax amount highlighted. The Standing Counsel contended for the petitioner's liability to pay the tax and penalty, stressing the need to pay the balance disputed tax for consideration by the 2nd appellate tribunal.
|
