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 authorities must expeditiously resolve pending GST appeals after unlawful search and recovery actions</h1> <h3>M/s. Hukkeri Taluka Samagra Grameen Abhivraddi Sangh, Versus The State Of Karnataka, The Union Of India, The Chairman, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Department Of Revenue, New Delhi, The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Department, Bengaluru, The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belagavi, The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Belagavi, The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Administration), The Commercial Tax Officer, The Commercial Tax Officer, (Enforcement), Gokak.</h3> M/s. Hukkeri Taluka Samagra Grameen Abhivraddi Sangh, Versus The State Of Karnataka, The Union Of India, The Chairman, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... 1. ISSUES:1. Whether the inspection and search conducted under Section 67(1) of the Central GST Act were lawful, given alleged procedural irregularities and incomplete authorization details.2. Whether coercive recovery of GST dues without issuance of statutory notice or order violates procedural safeguards under the GST Act.3. Whether the appellate authority is obliged to dispose of the appeal under Section 107(1) of the GST Act expeditiously, especially where coercive recovery is alleged.4. Whether the question of voluntariness or coercion in payment of recovered amounts is a matter for appellate determination.2. RULINGS / HOLDINGS:1. The Court observed that the authorization for inspection under Section 67(1) was issued but lacked the complete address of the premises; however, the legality of the search and inspection is subject to further adjudication.2. The Court held that allegations of coercive recovery without statutory notice or order are serious but must be examined by the appellate authority; the Court did not find sufficient ground to interfere at this stage.3. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred under Section 107(1) of the GST Act expeditiously, emphasizing timely adjudication.4. The Court clarified that determination of whether payments were made voluntarily or under coercion is a matter for the appellate authority to decide, not the High Court at this stage.3. RATIONALE:1. The Court applied the statutory framework under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Sections 67(1) (inspection and search) and 107(1) (appeals), emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements.2. Reliance was placed on precedent authorities cited by the petitioner to underscore principles against unlawful search and coercive recovery, but the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits.3. The Court recognized the importance of expeditious disposal of appeals to safeguard taxpayer rights and prevent undue hardship from prolonged proceedings.4. The Court maintained judicial restraint by leaving all substantive contentions open for the appellate authority's determination, thereby respecting the appellate process and statutory scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
