Amit Saxena vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court found the prayer made by the petitioner's counsel to be just and reasonable. Without opining on the merits of the case, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was permitted to file the appeal either manually or through the portal. The Court directed that for a period of two weeks from the date of the order, recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner would be held in abeyance. Further orders would be subject to the outcome of the appeal to be decided by the First Appellate Authority. The issue of whether the appeal would be entertained on the portal was addressed by granting liberty to file manually or on the portal.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Saxena, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging recovery proceedings initiated against him. While acknowledging the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, the petitioner highlighted that the First Appellate Authority was only recently appointed (order dated 24.05.2022). Coercive steps for recovery had already been initiated by memo dated 25.05.2022, and a communication was sent to the petitioner's bank on 20.05.2022 by the Excise and Taxation Officer. The petitioner sought a limited relief: to file an appeal within two weeks and for recovery proceedings to be stayed during this period, also raising a practical concern about portal filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, given the recent appointment of the First Appellate Authority and the initiation of recovery proceedings. 2. Whether recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner should be held in abeyance pending the filing and decision of the appeal. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that although a remedy of appeal exists, the peculiar circumstances, including the recent appointment of the appellate authority and the immediate initiation of coercive recovery steps, necessitate judicial intervention. The petitioner sought a two-week period to file the appeal and requested a stay on recovery proceedings during this time. A practical difficulty regarding portal filing was also raised. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents (Union of India and others).