M/S. Navodaya Service Center vs. Assistant Commissioner Of

Held

The Court held that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the adjudication order and the subsequent Order-in-Appeal, they must necessarily avail appropriate remedies available in law. The Court found that the petitioner cannot seek a deferment of recovery proceedings until the GST Appellate Tribunal is constituted. The Court observed that the petitioner's request for deferment is not a sustainable ground to avoid recovery. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive writ petition, subject to all just exceptions in law. The Court did not grant the interim relief sought by the petitioner regarding the stay of recovery proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Navodaya Service Center, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (R1) not to initiate recovery proceedings based on an appeal order dated 27.09.2023, until the GST Appellate Tribunal is constituted. The petitioner also sought directions to Vijaya Bank (R2) not to recover any sums from their account based on directions related to this dispute. The petitioner was aggrieved by an adjudication order dated 17.11.2022 passed under Section 73 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and a subsequent Order-in-Appeal under Section 107[11] of the KGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel requested to dispose of the petition with liberty to file a comprehensive writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the first respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) to refrain from initiating recovery proceedings pursuant to the appeal order dated 27.09.2023 until the GST Appellate Tribunal is constituted? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the second respondent (Vijaya Bank) not to recover any sums from the petitioner's account based on directions related to the present dispute? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should be deferred until the GST Appellate Tribunal is constituted, implying that the current appellate mechanism is incomplete or unavailable for further appeal. The petitioner sought directions to prevent immediate recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue (R1) regarding the petitioner's prayer for deferment of recovery. However, the Court's observation suggests that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders, they must avail appropriate remedies rather than seeking deferment until the Tribunal is constituted.