Arun Traders vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that after the review application was decided on June 26, 2024, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Dehradun, under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that Section 107(6) outlines the pre-deposit requirements for filing an appeal, including paying the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and ten percent of the disputed tax arrears. The petitioner's appeal against the penalty under Section 122 had not yet been registered. Consequently, the Court directed that no recovery should be effected from the petitioner until their appeal is registered. The Court disposed of the writ petition with this direction.
Facts
The petitioner, Arun Traders, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order passed under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had previously filed a review application which was decided on June 26, 2024. Following this, the petitioner filed an appeal against an order of penalty under Section 122 of the Act. However, this appeal had not been registered by the appellate authority. The present writ petition was filed after the review application was decided, seeking a remedy against the order under Section 107.
Key Issues
1. Whether the proper remedy for the petitioner after the decision on their review application was to approach the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. What are the pre-deposit requirements for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly concerning penalties under Section 122? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had availed the proper remedy by filing an appeal after the order dated June 26, 2024. They sought a direction to prevent recovery until their appeal was registered. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, the State of Uttarakhand and others, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's observation implies that the statutory remedy under Section 107 was available and should have been pursued.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 107(6), Section 122, Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024:UHC:5882-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 329 OF 2024
20TH AUGUST, 2024
Arun Traders (through its sole Proprietor Arun Kumar Thaledi)
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others
…… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State / respondents
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
In the present case, after the review application was decided on 26.06.2024, the proper remedy available against the order under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was to approach the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Dehradun.
2024:UHC:5882-DB
2)
The provision under Section 107(6) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, deals with pre-deposit for recovery of penalty. The s
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.