TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Overturns Assistant Commissioner's Order due to G.S.T. Tribunal Unavailability</h1> The High Court accepted the petitioner's challenge against the Assistant Commissioner's order, noting the unavailability of the G.S.T. Tribunal for ... Appealable order or not - Section 112 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act - in absence of the Constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition before this Court - HELD THAT:- The matter requires consideration. Issues:Challenge to order of Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad 3, Commercial Tax, Lucknow; Appeal before Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeals)-4 Commercial Tax Lucknow dismissed; Appeal to G.S.T. Tribunal not feasible due to non-constitution; Petition filed before High Court for redressal.Analysis:The petitioner has approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad 3, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, dated 26.02.2018. Subsequently, an appeal was made before the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeals)-4 Commercial Tax Lucknow, which was dismissed by an order dated 30.03.2019. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is appealable before the G.S.T. Tribunal under Section 112 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act. However, due to the non-existence of the Tribunal, the petitioner is compelled to seek remedy through the High Court. Reference is made to a previous decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2018 (70) GST page 295 Allahabad, to support the argument.The Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 4. The matter is deemed to require further consideration. The learned Standing Counsel is directed to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks, following which the petitioner will have two weeks to file a rejoinder-affidavit. The case is to be listed accordingly for further proceedings.This judgment highlights the procedural challenges faced by the petitioner in seeking redressal through the appropriate appellate forum due to the non-constitution of the G.S.T. Tribunal. The reliance on a previous court decision adds weight to the petitioner's argument. The Court's directive for filing affidavits and subsequent scheduling of the case demonstrates the judicial process's adherence to procedural fairness and due diligence in addressing the petitioner's grievances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
