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>Patna HC Reinstates Appeal Under Bihar GST Act Sec 129 After Invalidating Procedural Grounds for Initial Dismissal.</h1> <h3>Varun Bevarages Limited Versus The State of Bihar Bihar, The Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Darbhanga</h3> In the case before the Patna HC, the petitioner contested the dismissal of his appeal regarding a penalty under Section 129 of the Bihar GST Act, 2017. ... Dismissal of appeal filed against a penalty imposed, on detention under Section 129 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the finding of attempt to evade tax - HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has paid the entire penalty. In such circumstances, though there is a procedural irregularity in Annexure-9/A having not shown the amount under dispute, it is opined that the appeal has to be entertained. Annexure-9 set aside only on the technical reasons - the appeal will stand restored before the first Appellate Authority which shall consider the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the case before the Patna High Court, the petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal concerning a penalty imposed under Section 129 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for an alleged attempt to evade tax. The appeal was initially rejected due to two procedural issues: the absence of a hard copy filing and the failure to specify the 'Amount under Dispute' in Form GST APL-01.The court noted that the requirement for filing a hard copy had been waived by a government notification dated December 26, 2022, rendering the first ground for dismissal invalid. Regarding the second issue, the petitioner had marked 'Not Applicable' for the disputed amount, which was intended to ensure compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6). However, since the petitioner had already paid the entire penalty, the court deemed this a procedural irregularity.The court concluded that the appeal should not have been dismissed on these technical grounds and set aside the dismissal at Annexure-9. The appeal was restored to the first Appellate Authority for consideration on its merits, with instructions to provide the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
