M/S Durga Rai Vijay Kumar, Samour Bazar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Durga Rai Vijay Kumar, Samour Bazar, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the First Appellate Authority. The original order dated 22.11.2017 was passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, First Unit, Chandauli. The First Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the total disputed amount for maintaining its appeal, which the petitioner contends is a misinterpretation of the law. The petitioner claims to have already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount.
Held
The Court held that the First Appellate Authority had misconstrued Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The correct interpretation, as per the Court, is that the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount, not 10% of the total disputed amount, to maintain its appeal. Since the petitioner had indeed deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount, their appeal should have been heard on merits. The Court found that the petitioner had complied with the statutory requirement. The ratio of the decision is that a misinterpretation of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6)(b) by an appellate authority can lead to the setting aside of its order and remittance of the matter for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the First Appellate Authority correctly interpreted Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by requiring the deposit of 10% of the total disputed amount instead of 10% of the disputed tax amount for the maintenance of an appeal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 107(6)(b) of the Act, 2017, mandates the deposit of only 10% of the disputed tax amount, not the total disputed amount, for an appeal to be maintained. They stated they had complied with this requirement. Respondent's contention: The State-respondent did not record any specific contention regarding this issue in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 107(6)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 460 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Durga Rai Vijay Kumar, Samour Bazar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Raj Kapoor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires that the First Appeal Authority has misconstrued the provision of Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2017').
Thus, for the purposes of maintaining its appeal, the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount and not 10% of the total disputed amount as has been directed by the Appeal Authority. Also there is no dispute that the petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount (involved in the appeal) arising from the original order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, First Unit, Chandauli.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 2.3.2019 passed by the Appeal Authority i
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.