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 writ relief is appropriate against the Order-in-Original dated 22.04.2024 raising demand under the MGST and CGST Acts, or whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue statutory appeal remedies before the appellate authority.
Analysis: The Court considered the factual position that customs authorities had assessed and certified payment of customs duty, SWS and IGST on de-bonding and issued an NOC; the petitioner contested certain components of the demand before the Court but the Commissioner of Customs filed an affidavit confirming the assessment and payment. The petitioner expressly relented to not contest a portion of the demand but sought leave to challenge specified disputed amounts by statutory appeal. Respondents did not oppose the petitioner pursuing the appellate remedy. In these circumstances the Court found that directing the petitioner to pursue the available statutory appeal would appropriately address the disputed tax components and permit consideration of condonation of delay for the period the writ petition remained pending.
Conclusion: The petitioner is directed to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)I under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 within six weeks from the date this order is made available on the Court website; the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms with liberty to avail benefit of the period during which the petition was pending for condonation of delay. No costs.