The state was called and directed to submit a counter-affidavit within a week by the Patna High Court (HC), which is composed of Acting Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Jitendra Kumar.
The petition filed by Carbon Resources (P) Ltd. against the Appellate Order passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Appeals, the petitioner has the remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The section 112 of the CGST Act is about the Appellate Tribunal. However it is not functional. The deliberations are going on and every taxpayer is expecting the formation of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
The bench remarked that the petitioner has drawn the attention of the notice issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in exercise of power under Section 172 of the CGST Act for removal of difficulties.
It was further noted that the petitioner claimed that, as a result of the government’s order issued under Section 172 of the GST Act, the deadline for filing an appeal before the Tribunal against an appellate order is now to be calculated from the date the Tribunal was established. Additionally, the petitioner’s preference for an appeal is still valid.
The bench noticed sub-sections (9) and (8)(b) of Section 112 read collectively, as well as the petitioner’s assertion that they were prepared to deposit 20% of the remaining amount of tax in controversy within a week.
Sub-section (9) of Section 112 of the Act reads as under:-
“Where the appellant has paid the amount as per sub-section (8), the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed till the disposal of the appeal.”
The bench observed the above provisions and mentioned that if the petitioner deposits 20 percent of the remaining tax within one week, recovery of the balance amount shall remain stayed.
According to the petitioner’s counsel contention, the term “remaining tax” as used in Section 112 sub-section (8) of the CGST Act does not include interest on disputed tax.
The bench determined that they were not pleased with the petitioner side’s explanation and believed that the interest component should be included in the remaining tax. However, it is not the court’s final ruling, and after the state filed its counter affidavit within a week, the court opted to review the matter in more depth.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
