Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the GST demand orders should be entertained in view of the availability of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the petitioner should be granted permission to appeal with modification of the pre-deposit requirement and protection against limitation.
Analysis: The petitions concerned two demand orders for the same tax period and overlapping transactions. In view of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner was directed to pursue appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court also permitted adjustment of the amount already deposited and limited the immediate pre-deposit to one demand, while protecting the petitioner from dismissal on limitation if the appeals were filed within the stipulated period.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 107, with the directions regarding pre-deposit, adjustment of the deposited amount, and limitation protection.
Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by directing the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy, with ancillary relief on pre-deposit and filing within time.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available in a GST matter, the writ jurisdiction may be declined and the litigant relegated to the appellate forum with appropriate directions on pre-deposit and limitation.