2023 (10) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought following substantive reliefs :- "(a) Rule be issued; (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction most particular in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to admit the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and hear them on the merits of the case and thereafter issue an order on merits in accordance with law; (c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction most particular in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the case and peruse the same and issue appropriate directions or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to admit the Appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner confirming demand of Rs. 10,09,154/- towards IGST Tax and imposed penalty of the same amount under Section 129 of the Act. M/s. Blue Star Ltd. deposited the said amount aggregating to Rs. 20,18,308/- to secure release of goods since they were affected by detention and the said amount was subsequently deducted from the account of the Petitioner by M/s. Blue 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order-in-Original, the Petitioner on 27th January, 2020 approached Respondent No. 1 to file an appeal challenging the order. However, Respondent No. 1 refused to take an appeal on record by making a note on the covering letter that payment of Rs. 20,18,308/- is made under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act by M/s. Blue Star Ltd., owner of the goods an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on in the Act which entitles the Appellate Authority not to take on record the appeal from a person against whom the Order-in-Original is passed but tax and penalty has been deposited by another person on behalf of the person against whom the Order-in-Original is passed. 12. In our view, Respondent No. 1 is not justified in refusing to take the appeal, proposed to be filed by the Petitioner, on record. The Order-in- Original against which the appeal is proposed to be filed is passed against the Petitioner. The fact that the goods which were being transported were released to M/s. Blue Star Ltd. by making payment of Rs. 20,18,308/- on behalf of the Petitioner would not mean that appeal has to be filed by M/s. Blue Star Ltd. The said payment....