Pilot Industries Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner
Held
The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner, who passed the order dated 13.05.2024, is the proper officer. It was also held that an alternate remedy of filing an appeal is available to the appellant against this order. The Court noted that as per Section 107(6) of the GST Act, the appellant is required to deposit 25% of the amount demanded before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court modified the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is directed to deposit 25% of the amount demanded by the proper officer in the order dated 13.05.2024. Upon making this deposit, the vehicle and goods shall be released. The issue regarding the Joint Commissioner's authority as an appellate authority was noted as pending but not decided in this appeal.
Facts
The appellant, Pilot Industries Limited, is challenging an order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Act, who is stated to be the proper officer. The appellant sought release of goods and a vehicle. The judgment mentions that the question of whether the Joint Commissioner can be the appellate authority is pending before the High Court. The appellant had approached the High Court, and a learned Single Judge passed an order dated 17.05.2024. The present proceedings are a Special Appeal against the Single Judge's order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Act, is the proper officer to pass the order dated 13.05.2024. The appellant's primary contention is that they are challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The revenue's argument is not explicitly recorded, but the court acknowledges the Deputy Commissioner as the proper officer. 2. Whether the appellant has an alternate remedy of appeal against the order dated 13.05.2024. The appellant's challenge implies a dispute regarding the order's validity or the process. The revenue, through the court's observation, points to the availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The appellant's reliance on the pending writ petition concerning the appellate authority suggests a potential procedural hurdle or challenge to the appellate mechanism itself.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
The issue whether the Joint Commissioner can be the appellate authority, is a question, which is pending consideration before this Court in a Writ Petition, which is fixed for 19.06.2024. However, in the present case, the summary order dated 13.05.2024, has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is the proper officer, and against this order, an alternate remedy of filing an appeal is available. As per the GST Act, before the Appellate Authority, under sub-section (6) of section 107 of
the GST Act, the appellant has to deposit 25% of the amount before the Appellate Authority.
Keeping in view the
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.