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>Partial Stay Granted in CGST Act Dispute, Differential Amount Recovery Allowed Under Section 50</h1> HC examined a writ petition challenging a CGST Act order under Section 50. The Court partially stayed the impugned orders, permitting recovery of a ... Error of jurisdiction - Recovery of differential duty - validity of final order passed by the respondent No.2 u/s 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The demand is towards the differential amount as well as the interest and penalty thereon. Since the entire dispute as raised by the petitioner is with reference to the interest and penalty thereon, there is no impediment for the respondents to recover the differential amount from the petitioner. It is found just and appropriate to stay the impugned order 31.08.2023 issued by respondent No.5 and order dated 22.11.2023 issued by respondent No.4 except to the extent of differential amount of Rs.16,55,642/- until further orders. The respondents are entitled to recover the same from the petitioner which shall be subject to further orders of this Court. Application disposed off. Issues involved: 1. Maintainability of the writ petition 2. Error of jurisdiction by the original authority 3. Challenge to final order under Section 50 of the CGST Act 4. Recovery sought against the petitioner 5. Stay on impugned orders Maintainability of the writ petition: The petitioner raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, alleging an error of jurisdiction by the original authority. The respondents objected to this prior to the amendment in the petition. The final order passed under Section 50 of the CGST Act has been challenged, with contentions of error of jurisdiction. The Court decided to hear the matter finally, considering that the rule has already been issued. The objection on maintainability will be further addressed during the final hearing.Error of jurisdiction by the original authority: The primary contention was that the original authority lacked the authority to pass the impugned order. The respondents supported this contention. The final order under Section 50 of the CGST Act dated 31.08.2023 was challenged, with a recovery sought against the petitioner. The Court found it just to stay the impugned orders until further orders, allowing the recovery of the differential amount subject to the Court's decision.Challenge to final order under Section 50 of the CGST Act: The respondent authority issued a final order under Section 50 of the CGST Act dated 31.08.2023, which was challenged through an amendment. The recovery sought against the petitioner included the differential amount, interest, and penalty. The Court viewed the dispute as primarily concerning interest and penalty, allowing the recovery of the differential amount from the petitioner.Recovery sought against the petitioner: The recovery sought against the petitioner included the differential amount, interest, and penalty. The petitioner's claim was related to the payment of interest, while the demand was for amounts already refunded. The Court permitted the recovery of the differential amount from the petitioner, subject to further orders.Stay on impugned orders: In light of the circumstances, the Court stayed the impugned orders dated 31.08.2023 and 22.11.2023, except for the differential amount of Rs.16,55,642. The respondents were allowed to recover this amount from the petitioner, pending further orders. The respondents were also given the liberty to file an application for vacation or modification of this order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
