Surendra Singh Negi vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner under Section 80 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court did not decide on the merits of allowing installments directly. The reasoning was based on the suggestion made by the State's counsel, which provided a procedural avenue for the petitioner to seek relief. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies available under the Act should be availed first for issues related to payment deferrals or installments. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 80 of the Act.
Facts
The petitioner approached the High Court of Uttarakhand feeling aggrieved by an order dated January 22, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Gopeshwar, Chamoli. This order fastened the petitioner with a liability to pay ₹7,50,331/- as Goods and Service Tax. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute the determined tax amount. However, the petitioner, citing poor financial condition, sought permission to deposit the tax liability in installments. The State's counsel suggested that the petitioner could approach the Commissioner, Tax, under Section 80 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if they required time to pay.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, facing financial difficulties, can be permitted to deposit the determined GST liability in installments, considering the provisions of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that due to their poor financial condition, it is not feasible to deposit the entire tax amount of ₹7,50,331/- in one go and therefore, they should be allowed to pay it in installments. The petitioner did not dispute the tax amount itself. The State, represented by its counsel, submitted that if the petitioner requires time to pay the tax amount, they have the recourse to approach the Commissioner, Tax, under Section 80 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. No specific precedents or circulars were mentioned by either side.
Sections Cited
Section 80
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:UHC:320-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMB/1110/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Ms. Mamta Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Pooja Banga, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents.
Petitioner has been fastened with the liability to pay `7,50,331/- as Goods and Service Tax, vide order dated 22.1.2025, passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Gopeshwar, Chamoli. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the amount determined as tax, which petitioner is liable to pay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of poor financial condition, it is not possible for the petitioner to deposit the amount of tax in one go. She submits that petitioner be permitted to deposit the amount in installments.
Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Brief holder appearing for the State submits that if petitioner wants some time to pay the amount of tax, then she can approach 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.