The Commercial Tax Officer vs. M/S. New Modern Industries
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 25.03.2022 in W.P No.5275/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition by stating in last paragraph of the order as under: “Therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act upon deposit of 25% of the penalty. The petitioner shall be entitled for return of the surety bond and the bank guarantee furnished. If the petitioner, upon filing the appeal with the deposit as aforesaid, files with the first respondent, the details of the appeal and the deposit made, the first respondent shall within ten [10] working days from the date of receipt of such information, return the bank guarantee/surety bond furnished. It is needless to observe that all contentions of the parties are left open.”
We have been informed by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent in terms of the directions of the learned Single Judge has filed an appeal which has been dismissed, which order has been challenged in a NC: 2024:KHC:41900-DB writ petition before learned Single Judge of this Court which is still pending consideration.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reason for filing the present appeal is because, the order passed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’ in short) which was impugned before the Appellate Authority stipulates imposition of 100% penalty relating to detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyance in transit as against an appeal filed against said order under Section 107 of the CGST Act only 25% of the penalty has to be made as pre-deposit. According to him, it needs to be decided, whether 25% of the penalty on pre-deposit is appropriate. He qualified his submission by stating as Section 129 of the CGST Act is a non-obstante clause, the condition of pre-deposit to the extent of 25% cannot substitute the penalty of 100% imposed under Section 129 of the CGST Act for the release of the goods.
He states, after the filing of the appeal by the respondent, on the respondent depositing 25% of the NC: 2024:KHC:41900-DB penalty, the vehicle as well as the bank guarantee have been released in favour of the respondent.
He states that since an important issue has been raised on the interpretation of Sections 129 and 107 of CGST Act, which will shall have bearing on future cases, in the facts of this case, as the appeal filed by the respondent before the Appellate Authority has been dismissed and a writ petition is pending, and also the fact on deposit of 25% of the amount, the bank guarantee and the vehicle have been released, the question of law be kept open to be decided in some other case. Noting the submission, we dispose of the appeal leaving the question of law on interpretation of Sections 107 and 129 of CGST Act open, to be decided in an appropriate case. (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
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.