Hawkeye Infracare vs. Deputy Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax
Held
The Court held that, in light of Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if the tax amount is disputed, only 10% of the disputed tax amount is to be deposited before the appellate authority. The Court noted that the assessed tax demand is Rs. 1,99,58,792/. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 was modified. The appellant is now required to deposit only 10% of the tax demand due before the Proper Officer. The operation of the impugned order has been stayed in the meantime. The Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Facts
The appellant, Hawkeye Infracare, is challenging an order dated 21.03.2024, which directed them to deposit Rupees One Crore with the Proper Officer. The appellant states that the assessed tax demand is Rs. 1,99,58,792/. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax, contends that the total demand, including penalty and interest, amounts to approximately Rupees Six Crores. The matter is before the High Court in a Special Appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellant is required to deposit the entire amount demanded or only a portion thereof before the appellate authority, considering the provisions of Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax, 2017? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argues that as per Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if the tax amount is disputed, only 10% of the disputed tax amount needs to be deposited before the appellate authority. They highlight that the assessed tax demand is Rs. 1,99,58,792/. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent states that the total demand, including penalty and interest, is approximately Rupees Six Crores. They do not explicitly argue on the interpretation of Section 107(6)(b) but provide the total demand figure.
Sections Cited
Section 107(6)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
Counsel for the appellant contends that, as per the impugned order dated 21.03.2024, the appellant-writ petitioner has been directed to deposit Rupees One Crore with the Proper Officer. Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner contends that the tax demand is Rs. 1,99,58,792/-, which is the assessed amount.
Notice of motion.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.
She submits that including penalty and interest, the tax demand comes to about Rupees Six Crores
2
Keeping in view the provisions of Section 1
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.