Ajaypal Singh Yadav vs. Deputy Commissioner
Held
The Court held that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.04.2024 requires modification in light of the provisions of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found merit in the appellant's contention that Section 107(6)(b) of the Act permits an appeal upon deposit of only 10% of the disputed tax amount. Consequently, the Court modified the learned Single Judge's order to the extent that the appellant would be required to deposit only 10% of the amount assessed as per the order dated 21.11.2022. The Court also stayed the operation of the order dated 21.11.2022 and directed the de-freezing of the appellant's bank account. The ratio decidendi is that statutory provisions governing pre-deposit for appeals must be strictly adhered to, and a bank guarantee for the entire disputed amount is impermissible when the law prescribes a lesser pre-deposit.
Facts
The appellant, M/s Ajaypal Singh Yadav, is challenging an order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The original order, dated 21.11.2022 and issued under Section 73(1) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, assessed a demand of Rs. 8,17,568/- against the appellant. The appellant contended that the learned Single Judge's order required him to furnish a bank guarantee for the entire disputed amount, which contravenes Section 107(6)(b) of the Act, stipulating a deposit of only 10% of the disputed tax amount before the Appellate Authority. The Special Appeal was filed against this order of the learned Single Judge.
Key Issues
1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee for the entire disputed tax amount, contrary to the provisions of Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The appellant argued that Section 107(6)(b) mandates a deposit of only 10% of the disputed tax amount to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, requiring a bank guarantee for the full amount is against the statutory provision. The respondent, the State of Uttarakhand, did not record any specific arguments against this contention.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
In this case, an order has been issued to the appellant (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) under Section 73(1) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and as per this order, the amount assessed is Rs. 817568/-.
With respect to this demand, counsel for the appellant states that, even if this demand amount is to be paid before the Appellate Authority, under Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, he is required to pay only 10% of the disputed tax amount before the Appellate Authority. However, by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge,
2
he has b
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.