Sri. G P Anantharaju vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals )
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to avoid further appellate remedies and prevent precipitous action like bank account attachment.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner, having availed appellate remedy, must pursue further appellate remedies as the grounds raised are open for consideration in a second appeal. The Court also granted exclusion of time spent prosecuting the writ petition for the purpose of further appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere with an adjudication order when an appellate remedy has been availed, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to further appellate remedies.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107(11), Section 108, Section 107(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The question for consideration is whether this Court must interfere with the Adjudication Order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/ Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act') notwithstanding a decision of the Appellate Authority in the petitioners' appeal against Adjudication Order.
Ms. Monisha Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must consider interfering without relegating the petitioner to the remedy under Section 108 of the Act, notwithstanding that the Tribunal is now constituted because the intimation and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35942 the show cause notice are even dated. The learned counsel also submits that if the petitioner is to be relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 108 of the Act despite the canvas as afore, this Court may defer precipitous action resulting in attachment to the bank account.
This Court has heard Sri. Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for respondents, for the disposal of the petition. This Court is of the view that with the petitioner having availed appellate remedy, must pursue further appellate remedy, especially when the grounds offered are open for consideration in a second appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is relegated to such remedy. Against request for orders against precipitation, Sri. Hema Kumar submits that if the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the demand at the time of filing the appeal under Section 107(6) of the Act and voluntarily deposits another 10% in DRC-03, there would be an automatic stay. This Court finds considerable HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35942 force in this submission as well and the petitioner will, undoubtedly, be at liberty in this regard.
This Court, as regards the exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this petition, is of the view that because the petition is being disposed of relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy, the petitioner must be entitled to seek exclusion of the period between the date of the petition and the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and this exclusion is granted in exercise of power under Article 226 for the Constitution of India in the peculiarities of the case. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
BSV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.