Forace Polymers Private LTD. vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that the notification dated March 31, 2016, requiring a 10% pre-deposit for appeals, could not be applied retrospectively to an assessment order passed prior to its effective date. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that the notification's application would be prospective. The Court found the order of the Joint Commissioner, which treated the appeal as deficient based on this retrospective application, to be bad. The ratio decidendi is that statutory amendments or notifications cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly provided for. The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent (Joint Commissioner) to hear the appeal by waiving the condition of pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand.
Facts
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Uttarakhand, which required a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand for an appeal to be heard. The assessment order giving rise to the dispute was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) on July 28, 2015, for the assessment year 2012-13. The Joint Commissioner relied on a notification dated March 31, 2016, to impose the pre-deposit condition. The petitioner argued that this notification, having come into force after the assessment order was passed, could not be applied retrospectively.
Key Issues
1. Whether the notification dated March 31, 2016, requiring a 10% pre-deposit for appeals, can be applied retrospectively to an assessment order passed on July 28, 2015, for the assessment year 2012-13? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notification came into force on March 31, 2016, while the assessment order was passed on July 28, 2015. Therefore, the notification could not be applied retrospectively and had no application to their case. Revenue's contention: The Additional CSC fairly submitted that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner treating the appeal as deficient was bad. He conceded that an amendment in the Act cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect.
Sections Cited
Section 9 (2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPMS No. 1079 of 2019 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.
Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. CSC for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. Vide order dated 28.07.2015 assessment order was passed by Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) under Section 9 (2) of the CGST Act. Against the order dated 28.07.2015 petitioner filed an appeal with application for waiver of pre-deposit amount before the Joint Commissioner. Joint Commissioner referring to the notification dated 31.03.2016 opined that petitioner was required to make pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand. Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner submits that notification came into force on 31.03.2016 while assessment pertains to assessment year 2012-13 and assessment order passed on 28.07.2015, therefore, this notification/ amendment cannot be applied with retrospective effect and has no application in petitioner’s case. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. CSC fairly submits that order passed by Joint Commissioner treating the appeal as deficient is bad. Amendment in the Act cannot be made applicable from retrospective effect. Accordingly, present petition is al
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.