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>GST demand on Infrastructure Development Cess and Environment Cess challenged through writ petition dismissed under Section 107</h1> <h3>Ultratech Cement Limited Versus Union Of India, State Of Chhattisgarh, Principal Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, Additional Commissioner, CGST, Assistant Commissioner, Chhattisgarh</h3> Ultratech Cement Limited Versus Union Of India, State Of Chhattisgarh, Principal Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, ... Issues Involved:1. Legality, validity, and propriety of the order confirming GST demand.2. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of the alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.Issue 1: Legality, Validity, and Propriety of the GST Demand OrderThe petitioner, a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and supply of cement, challenged the order dated 26.09.2023 by the Additional Commissioner (CGST and Central Excise), Raipur, which confirmed the demand for GST amounting to Rs. 14,35,54,944/- (CGST Rs. 7,17,77,472/- + SGST Rs. 7,17,77,472/-) along with interest and penalty on the Development Cess and Environment Cess. The petitioner argued that the cesses paid under the Chhattisgarh (Adhosanrachna Vikas Evam Paryavaran) Upkar Adhiniyam, 2005, should not attract GST as there was no element of consideration or supply to attract GST under Section 7 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the state government was undertaking infrastructure and environment projects for the benefit of its citizens, not specifically for the petitioner.Issue 2: Maintainability of the Writ PetitionThe respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner as provided under Chapter XVIII of the GST Act, 2017, and thus, the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner countered that the appellate authority would be bound by departmental circulars under Section 168 (1) of the GST Act, making the appeal a mere formality and prejudiced against the principle of natural justice. The petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments in M/s Filterco and Another vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Another and M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others to argue that the High Court should examine the merits of the case despite the availability of an alternate remedy.Court's DecisionThe court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days, ensuring that neither the appellate authority nor the respondents would take the plea of limitation. The appellate authority was instructed to decide the appeal on its merits without being influenced by the court's observations. The court did not go into the merits of the case but focused on the issue of alternate remedy available to the petitioner.
TaxTMI 