GST Writ Petition Filed Due to Missing 2nd Appellate Tribunal; Interim Tax Deposit Ordered, Further Proceedings Pending.

The HC entertained a writ petition challenging the 1st appellate order under the GST Act due to the absence of a 2nd appellate tribunal. The petitioner contended they were not liable for the tax and penalty, and the court acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal, which could not be condoned beyond four months. The petitioner was required to deposit the entire tax demand within fifteen days as an interim measure, with the rest of the demand stayed during the writ petition's pendency. The matter was listed for further proceedings alongside another case.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the 1st appellate order under sub-sections (1) & (4) of Section 107 of the GST Act, delay in preferring the appeal, liability to pay tax and penalty, constitution of the 2nd appellate tribunal, and the interim measure of depositing entire tax demand.

Details of the judgment:

1. Challenge to 1st appellate order:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the 1st appellate order dated 12-4-2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST (Appeal), Balasore. The order was not admitted due to contravention of sub-sections (1) & (4) of Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that they are not liable to pay the tax and penalty, and as there is no 2nd appellate tribunal constituted, the writ petition was entertained.

2. Delay in preferring the appeal:
The Respondent contended that there was a delay in preferring the appeal, and the Court may not be able to condone the delay beyond four months. The appellate authority did not have the discretion to condone the delay beyond one month after three months from the date of communication of the impugned order. The petitioner was required to pay 20% balance disputed tax for consideration of its appeal by the 2nd appellate tribunal.

3. Liability to pay tax and penalty:
The Respondent argued that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax and penalty. It was emphasized that the petitioner must pay the balance disputed tax if they wish to avail the remedy by appealing before the 2nd appellate tribunal. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the 1st appellate authority.

4. Constitution of 2nd appellate tribunal:
The petitioner sought to avail the remedy by approaching the 2nd appellate tribunal, which had not yet been constituted. As an interim measure, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire tax demand within fifteen days, the rest of the demand was stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.

5. Interim measure and disposal of I.A.:
The Court disposed of the I.A. and listed the matter along with another case on the date fixed therein. The interim measure required the petitioner to deposit the entire tax demand within fifteen days for the stay of the rest of the demand during the pendency of the writ petition.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, addressing the various issues involved and the decisions made by the Court.

---