TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Judicial Intervention Pauses Tax Penalty Recovery, Highlights Procedural Gaps in CGST Appellate Mechanism Under Section 121</h1> <h3>RAJKALP MUDRANALYA PRIVATE LIMITED THRO KALPESH MANEKLAL PATEL Versus SUPERINTENDENT</h3> HC granted interim stay on penalty recovery initiated under CGST order due to absence of functioning Tribunal. The court noted contradictory actions by ... Recovery of penalty pursuant to the order impugned - no Tribunal is constituted - HELD THAT:- Reading the order would indicate that the author of the order had opined that the petitioner should inform the authority if any appeal or stay application has been filed against the OIA dated 31.07.2023 and whether the Appellate Authority has granted stay of the order. It is the case of the authority that if no stay of recovery of dues has been granted, the petitioner is called upon to pay the dues in question. Issue NOTICE returnable on 07.12.2023. Issues involved: Challenge to order passed by Appellate Authority under CGST due to absence of constituted Tribunal, initiation of recovery of penalty, contradictory actions of Competent Authorities.Challenge to order passed by Appellate Authority under CGST: The petition challenges the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the CGST due to the absence of a constituted Tribunal, making the petition the avenue for challenging the order. The petitioner's advocate highlights a communication initiating recovery of penalty based on the impugned order. The order suggests that the petitioner should inform the authority about any appeal or stay application filed against the OIA and whether the Appellate Authority granted a stay of the order. The authority indicates that if no stay of recovery of dues has been granted, the petitioner is required to pay the dues. This situation exposes a contradiction between the actions of the Competent Authorities, especially considering the non-functioning of the Tribunal despite its constitution.Initiation of recovery of penalty: A communication dated 04.10.2023 from the office of the Superintendent, AR-V, Division-VI, has initiated the recovery of penalty following the order being challenged in the petition. The order initiating recovery is taken on record, and the petitioner's advocate successfully secures a stay on the recovery steps until the next date of hearing, which is set for 07.12.2023. This stay provides temporary relief to the petitioner regarding the recovery process.Contradictory actions of Competent Authorities: The situation highlights a discrepancy in the actions of Competent Authorities. Despite the Tribunal being constituted but non-functioning, orders of recovery are being issued, prompting assessees to provide information on the status of any appeals filed. This discrepancy raises questions about the coherence and consistency of actions taken by the authorities involved. The court takes note of this contradiction and issues a notice returnable on 07.12.2023 to address the issues raised in the petition comprehensively.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
