9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of the demanded tax or penalty and 10% of the disputed amount. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding tax and it is the appellant-writ petitioner s case that the tax in its entirety has been paid to the Corporation which, in turn, is obligated to remit the said amount to the State Tax Department. Since the appellant-writ petitioner disputes levy of penalty in its entirety, they would, in terms of Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, only be required to deposit 10% of such penalty and as a result, in terms of Sub-Section (7) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, the remaining penalty need not be paid. That does not, however, solve the problem which the appellant-writ petitioner faces i.e. for release of the goods detained by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. And Hon ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. For the Appellant-writ Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel For the State of Uttarakhand-respondents 1 to 3. : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel For the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation-respondents 4 and 5. : Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned Standing Counsel ORDER RAMESH RANGANATHAN, C.J. (ORAL) Heard Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Government, Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Forest Devel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the penalty, if at all, should have been paid by the Corporation, since the error in issuing one e-way bill instead of two was on their part and not on the part of the appellant-writ petitioner, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition at the stage of admission relegating the appellant-writ petitioner to the remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the CGST Act ). Aggrieved thereby, the present Special Appeal. 5. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the proceedings under challenge is an order of detention of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defines adjudicating authority in very broad terms. Under Section 2(4) of the CGST Act, an adjudicating authority has been defined to mean any authority, appointed or authorised to pass any order or decision under the Act, but not to include the authorities specified therein. Admittedly the Appellate Authority, under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, is not one such. Since an appeal would lie against any order passed or decision taken by any authority appointed or authorized to pass any order or decision under the Act, it does appear that an order of detention can also be appealed against under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. 7. Section 107(6) of the CGST Act stipulates that no appeal shall be filed, under Sub-Section (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or release of the goods detained by the respondent-authorities. If, on the other hand, he were to comply with the demand notice issued under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act then, in terms of Section 129(5) of the CGST Act, on payment of the amount referred to in Sub-Section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in Sub-Section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded, in which event the goods would be released. Would conclusion of all proceedings mean that the appellant would not be entitled to prefer an appeal? 10. It is unnecessary for us to examine this contention in the present proceedings. Suffice it, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to modify the order of the learned Single Judge and, ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
