Sri Sai Auto Tech Bodhan vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri Sai Auto Tech Bodhan, challenged a recovery letter dated December 4, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST to Axis Bank branches. The petitioner argued that while they have a remedy of appeal, the GST Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted. They sought interim protection from recovery until the appellate authority is formed, and contended that under Section 112(8)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, only a certain percentage of the disputed tax, not the penalty, needs to be deposited. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, had no objection to this prayer.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal as and when it is constituted. Crucially, the Court directed that until the appellate authority is formed, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the recovery letter dated 04.12.2023. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they have an appellate remedy but cannot avail it due to the non-constitution of the tribunal, and the revenue's lack of objection to the interim relief sought. The ratio decidendi is that in the absence of a functional appellate mechanism, and with no objection from the revenue, interim protection against recovery should be granted to preserve the petitioner's right to appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the recovery letter dated 04.12.2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST is void, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional principles and natural justice, particularly in the absence of a constituted GST Appellate Tribunal? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection from coercive recovery actions until the GST Appellate Tribunal is constituted and they can avail their appellate remedy? 3. Whether the petitioner is only required to deposit a certain percentage of the disputed tax, as per Section 112(8)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, and not the penalty amount, while pursuing their appeal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the recovery letter was illegal and arbitrary. They highlighted the lack of a constituted GST Appellate Tribunal, preventing them from filing an appeal. They relied on Section 112(8)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, to argue for a reduced deposit requirement for appeal. They sought interim relief to prevent recovery until the tribunal is functional. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, stated they had no objection to the petitioner's prayer.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J) Mr.M.Nagar Deepak, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4. 2. With the consent frnally heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has assailed tJre recovery letter dated 04.12.2023 issued to respondent No.
It is submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal but the appellate authority has not been constituted till date. By reserving liberty to avail the said remedy rvhenever appellate authority is constituted, this petition may be disposed of and in the meantime, the respondents may be directed not to recover the amount pursuant to letter dated 04.12.2023. It is further submitted that in vierv of Clause (b) of Sub-Section (8) of Section 112 of CGST Act, 2017, the petitioner is only required to deposit certain percentage of tax in dispute and not the amount of penalty. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid interim protection may be granted without compelling
2 To, the petitioner to deposit any amount till availing the remedy of appeal.
Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.l and 4 has no objection to this innocuous prayer.
The writ petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal as prayed for. Till formation of appellate authority, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to recovery letter dated 04.12.2023. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. . A. PRATHIMA ASSISTANT RE9lsrRAR //rRUE coPY/, l: ) SECTIoN OFFICER
The Assrstant Commissioner of Central GST' Nizamabad GST Division' lr/ledchal commissioneraiJ'ritrn"d "ii'i"lgr.o rtobr' Nizamabad - 503 003'
The t\/anaqer, Axis Bank, Kanteshwar Branch' D'No'11/1/159/1 ' Vidyuth Naqar. Nrzmabad Districl
The t\,4anacler' Axis Bank' Sri Sai Tractors' Near Mahalaxmi Temple' " rri"nri"i.iilrrgar' trrtain Roua, Attoot' Nizamabad District' 4 The Conrnrissioner ol Ccntral Tax lvledchal C-ommissionerate Medchal GST - Bhr#"; i;c+gle rok;iiiipul Hvderabad - 500 004'
The Secretary, Unton of lndia' tVlinistry of Finance' North Block' New Delhi- 1 1 0001
One CC to SRI IvI NAGA DEEPAK' Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI DOIMINIC FERNANDES' Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC loPUCl 8-oneCCtoSRIGAD|PRAVEENKUMAR,DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia loPUCl 9 Two CD CoPies k t\4P
HIGH COURT DATED:0310412024 28, ORDER WP.No.2417 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rl t*,.. '\oq 1P'
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.