Supreme Court: Appeal rights clarified under CGST Act

The Supreme Court addressed the challenge against the order of confiscation of goods and demand of tax, fine, and penalty under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that the order passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act is appealable under Section 107, emphasizing the petitioner's right to raise all issues before the appellate authority. The Court disposed of the special leave petition, allowing the petitioner to present all issues before the appellate authority, clarifying the appeal process under the CGST Act and affirming the appealability of orders under Section 107.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of confiscation of goods and demand of tax, fine, and penalty under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Appealability of the order under Section 107 of the CGST Act - Efficacy of appeal as a remedy.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the challenge raised by the petitioner against the order of confiscation of goods and demand of tax, fine, and penalty under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed a writ petition, which was not entertained on the basis that the order passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act is appealable under Section 107 of the same Act. The petitioner's counsel relied on Rule 141, which allows for the release of seized goods upon payment of an amount equivalent to the market price of the goods or the amount of tax, interest, and penalty payable by the taxable person, whichever is lower.

Regarding the appeal process, Section 107(6) mandates that an appeal cannot be entertained unless the appellant pays the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty arising from the impugned order in full, along with a sum equivalent to 10% of the remaining tax amount in dispute. The petitioner contended that the appeal under Section 107 is not an efficacious remedy, emphasizing that Section 107 provides for appeals against decisions or orders passed by the adjudicating authority. The Court noted that the petitioner is free to raise all issues before the appellate authority.

In its final decision, the Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition, allowing the petitioner to present all issues before the appellate authority. Any pending applications were also deemed disposed of by the Court. The judgment clarified the appeal process under the CGST Act and upheld the appealability of orders under Section 107, while affirming the petitioner's right to raise all relevant issues before the appellate authority.

---