Vasundhara Carriers PVT LTD Through Its Director Pragnesh Natwarlal Shah vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Central Government Ministry Of Finance And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Vasundhara Carriers Pvt Ltd., approached the High Court challenging an order dated 19/02/2024. Their primary concern was their inability to present data pertaining to February and March 2019 before the impugned order was passed. The revenue argued that petitioners often approach the High Court directly to circumvent the statutory deposit requirement for appeals. The petitioners offered to deposit 10% of the disputed amount assessed in the impugned order if granted an opportunity to raise all grounds, including those related to the February-March 2019 data, to support their claim that customers had already paid the relevant GST and IGST.
Held
The Court acknowledged the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017. It held that the Petitioners should be permitted to file an appeal, subject to depositing 10% of the disputed assessed amount within 30 days and preferring the appeal before 18/05/2024, which was the end of the limitation period. The Court directed that the Statutory Authority would consider the appeal on its own merits, taking into account the entire record produced by both the Petitioners and the Department. All contentions of the litigating parties were kept open, except for any objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal based on the aforementioned statements. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioners should be granted an opportunity to present data of February and March 2019 before the Appellate Authority, in addition to other grounds, when preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that they were unable to espouse their cause based on the data of February and March 2019 before the impugned order was passed. They expressed willingness to deposit 10% of the disputed amount assessed in the impugned order if allowed to raise all grounds, including those related to the aforementioned data, to demonstrate that their customers had already deposited Central, State GST, and IGST. Revenue's Argument: The learned DSGI submitted that in light of Section 107, if the Petitioners prefer an appeal within the unexpired limitation period, the law would take its own course. The learned AGP submitted that it had become a fashion to approach the High Court directly to avoid the statutory deposit.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
24wp (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4246 OF 2024 M/S VASUNDHARA CARRIERS PVT LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PRAGNESH NATWARLAL SHAH AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS …. Mr A. M. Gholap, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr A. G. Talhar, DSGI for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr R. S. Wani, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.3 & 4
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 24th April, 2024 PER COURT:
This matter was heard for some time. Issue is as regards Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the anxiety of the Petitioners is that, they could not espouse their cause on the basis of the data of February and March, 2019 before the impugned order dated 19/02/2024 was passed. The learned AGP submits that it has become a fashion and a strategy to 2024:BHC-AUG:9007-DB
24wp (2) approach the High Court, directly, in order to avoid the statutory deposit before filing the statutory appeal.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that, if an opportunity is granted to raise all the grounds, including the grounds with relation to the data of February and March, 2019 in support of their contention that the customers of the Petitioners have already deposited Central as well as the State GST and IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax), the Petitioner, who is present in the Court, is willing to deposit 10% of the disputed amount of the assessment made by the impugned order, while preferring an Appeal.
The learned D.S.G.I. submits, in the light of Section 107 that, if the Petitioners prefer an Appeal for which the limitation period has still not expired, the law will take it’s own course by dealing with the Appeal. We are of the view that since the Petitioners have to deposit the statutory deposit of 10% of the disputed amount assessed, the entire material which the Petitioners would place before the Appellate Authority under 4246.24wp (3) Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 and the contentions, shall be considered on their own merits.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that, 10% of the disputed amount assessed under the impugned order, would be deposited.
In view of the above, considering that the Statutory remedy under Section 107 is available to the Petitioners, on the condition that the Petitioners shall deposit 10% of the disputed assessed amount within a period of 30 days and prefer an Appeal before 18/05/2024, since that would be the end of the limitation period for the Petitioners, the Statutory Authority would consider
the Appeal on it’s own merits and shall consider the entire record produced by the Petitioners, as well as by the Department. Needless to state, the contentions of all the litigating sides are kept open, except any objection as regards the maintainability of the Appeal, in view of the above statements. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.