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>Tax Order Challenge Barred: Statutory Appeal Route Mandatory Under Section 107 of GST Act</h1> <h3>Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Versus Union of India, State of Chhattisgarh, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur.</h3> The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging a tax order by the Joint Commissioner, finding that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section ... Validity Of Order passed by Joint Commissioner of State Tax - No opportunity of hearing - directed to pay / reverse the alleged ITC claimed - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed after scrutiny of returns u/s 61 of the Act, 2017 and it has been passed u/s 73 of the Act, 2017. Under the Act, 2017, there is specific provision for filing appeal before the appellate authority, if there is any grievance to the assessee from the impugned order, but without preferring appeal, the petitioner has directly approached before this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Since there is already alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order, hence, I do not feel inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Writ petition challenges impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur directing the petitioner to pay/reverse alleged ITC. The order was passed after 'scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the Act, 2017' and issued under 'Section 73 of the Act, 2017.' Petitioner contends the order is bad for want of due opportunity of hearing. Respondents maintain the order was passed after affording opportunity and submit that the petitioner may challenge the order by filing an appeal under 'Section 107 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017'. Court notes the existence of an 'alternative efficacious remedy' in the statutory appeal mechanism and that, instead, the petitioner has approached the High Court invoking 'extraordinary jurisdiction.' Petition is dismissed on that ground, while liberty is reserved to the petitioner to 'challenge the impugned order before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
