Tax Dispute Resolution: Petitioner Directed to File Appeal Under Section 107 of JGST Act for Comprehensive Review of Assessment

HC ruled on procedural aspects of GST tax dispute involving inter-state transaction. The court directed petitioner to file appeal under Section 107 of JGST Act, providing liberty to challenge tax officer's order and imposed tax/penalty. While not examining case merits, HC emphasized addressing factual and legal issues through appellate mechanism, ensuring due process and opportunity for comprehensive review of the disputed tax assessment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of State Taxes Officer for inter-state transactions under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Imposition of tax and penalty due to expired E-way Bill without intent to evade tax.
3. Validity of the order passed by the State Taxes Officer.
4. Release of Bank Guarantee by the State Respondents.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the State Taxes Officer for conducting proceedings under Section 129 of the Act for an inter-state transaction falling under the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the JGST Act. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order and directed the State Taxes Officer to provide the GSTIN number for online appeal filing. If online appeal filing faced technical issues, the petitioner could file a manual appeal before the appellate authority. The Court emphasized that all issues of facts and law should be raised in the appeal for consideration by the appellate authority.

2. The petitioner contended that the tax and penalty imposed due to the expired E-way Bill lacked intent to evade tax and contravention of the Act. The State Taxes Officer had issued orders and notices based on the expired E-way Bill, leading to the imposition of tax and penalty. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case but directed the petitioner to pursue the appeal process to address this issue comprehensively.

3. The order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the State Taxes Officer imposing tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 31,52,780/- was challenged by the petitioner for being beyond jurisdiction. The Court did not provide a substantive ruling on the validity of the order but directed the petitioner to seek remedy through the appellate authority, ensuring a thorough examination of the order's validity based on facts and law.

4. The petitioner sought the release of the Bank Guarantee furnished for the trucks. The Court did not specifically address this issue in the judgment but disposed of the writ petition with directions related to the appeal process, indicating that the issue of the Bank Guarantee release could be addressed as part of the broader appeal proceedings. The Court clarified that it did not assess the merits of the case but focused on providing the petitioner with the opportunity to seek redressal through the proper appellate channels.

---