9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so deposited the amount on 04.02.2022 as was required to be deposited which admittedly has been received by the Department on 19.02.2022 as per the statement given by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions and the fact that in terms of Section 80 of the GST Act the application for 24 installments was to be moved, present petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file an application under the provisions of Section 80 of the GST Act and Rule 23 of the GST Rules within three days from today. Petition disposed off. - Writ Tax No. - 83 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2022 - Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J. For the Petitioner : Manoj Kumar Mishra, Piyush Tripathi For the Respondent : C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier he has approached this Court by filing Writ Tax No. 8 of 2022 in re: M/S Ram Singh Work Contractor vs Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 against the assessed amount of Rs 28,43,278/-. The said petition has been disposed of vide judgement and order dated 24.01.2022, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition, directing the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal expeditiously. It was also provided that in case the petitioner makes workable proposal for the purpose of deposit of GST before the appellate authority the same shall be considered while deciding the pending appeal. The petitioner was also required to deposit 20% of the outstanding liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Division Bench was not complied with, and (b) that as per the relevant provisions of the U.P. Goods and Sales Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'GST Act'), the amount is to be paid within 24 installments while the petitioner had prayed for deposit of the amount in 60 installments, which was legally unsustainable and therefore the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment of the Division Bench was duly informed to the competent authority by means of the application dated 31.01.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition, whereby it was also indicated that the petitioner is in the process of depositing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 24.01.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, contends that even the intention of the Division Bench of this Court was for the authorities to proceed expeditiously so that the business of the petitioner may not suffer more particularly when the entire country is suffering from the effect of COVID-19 pandemic. He also submits that a further amount of Rs.50,000/- had also been deposited by the petitioner on 07.04.2022, which fact is also admitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2022 has already interfered in the matter and admittedly the petitioner has also deposited the amount on 04.02.2022 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
