9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 118 - HC - GSTChallenge to SCN for not paying GST under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/Telangana State Goods and Services Tax (TSGST) Act, 2017, despite having paid GST under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has already deposited the tax under the IGST Act, it is deemed proper to direct the petitioner to prefer appeal(s) within three weeks from today before the competent appellate authority. If such appeal(s) is/are filed within aforesaid time, despite not depositing 10% of the tax demanded, as per the statutory requirement, the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide such appeal(s) on merits expeditiously. Petition disposed off.
In the case before the Telangana High Court, the petitioner, represented by Sri Prasad Paranjape, contested a show cause notice for not paying GST under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/Telangana State Goods and Services Tax (TSGST) Act, 2017, despite having paid GST under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, amounting to Rupees 93.00 crores. The petitioner argued that they faced discrimination as similar cases were resolved under the IGST Act, and requested the court to waive the statutory requirement of depositing 10% of the tax demanded for filing an appeal, as there was no provision for such exemption by the appellate authority.
The respondents, represented by Sri Swaroop Oorilla, contended that the petitioner could raise all grounds in an appeal. The court, acknowledging the unique circumstances where the tax was already paid under the IGST Act, directed the petitioner to file appeals within three weeks without the need to deposit 10% of the tax demanded. The appellate authority was instructed to decide the appeals on merits, and the respondents were restrained from taking coercive actions against the petitioner until the appeals were filed. The court disposed of the writ petitions without costs and closed any pending interlocutory applications.
|
