Ram Dutt vs. The Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate
Facts
The petitioner, Ram Dutt, engaged in the business of Oleo Resin extraction and transportation, was charged GST at 18% by the Proper Officer/Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner contended that GST should be levied at 5%, relying on a Ruling issued by the Authority for Advance Rulings for the State of Uttarakhand. The respondent, the Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate, argued that the order was passed under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, making it appealable under Section 107. The petitioner stated that the order was passed in 2023, rendering the appeal time-barred.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention regarding the applicable GST rate and the respondent's submission that the order is appealable. The Court also noted the petitioner's concern that the appeal might be time-barred due to the order being passed in 2023. Considering these circumstances, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate forum within ten days from the date of the order. If the appeal is filed within this stipulated period, it is to be heard and decided on its merits, with the question of delay to be ignored. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST rate dispute or the validity of the advance ruling.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay GST at 18% or 5% on the business of Oleo Resin extraction and transportation, as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act and the Authority for Advance Rulings' decision. 2. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Proper Officer/Assistant Commissioner is maintainable, considering it was passed in 2023 and the petitioner claims it is time-barred. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they are liable to pay GST only at 5%, citing the Authority for Advance Rulings' decision. They also contended that the appeal against the order passed in 2023 has become time-barred. Respondent's contentions: The respondent argued that the order was passed under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, which is appealable under Section 107 of the said Act.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
UKHC010166752026
2026:UHC:9182-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
2026 WPMB/860/2026 Ram Dutt
--Petitioner Versus The Commissioner Uttarakhand State Gst Commissionerate
--Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Saurabh Budhori, learned counsel for the petitioner
Ms. Puja Banga, learned counsel for respondents.
Petitioner is engaged in the business of Oleo Resin, both extraction and transportation. He was charged GST @ 18% by order passed by Proper Officer/ Assistant Commissioner. Petitioner relies upon Ruling issued by Authority For Advance Rulings For The State of Uttarakhand (Goods and Services Tax) for contending that he is liable to pay GST only @ 5%, therefore, he was wrongly taxed by Proper Officer/ Assistant Commissioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GST authorities, however, submits that the order was passed by Proper Officer/ Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of th
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.