Joint Commissioner of State Tax (I&E) Vs Sasi Pathirakunnath (Kerala High Court)
In the case of Joint Commissioner of State Tax (I&E) Vs. Sasi Pathirakunnath, the Kerala High Court deliberated on whether the discretion exercised by the appellate authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST/SGST Act was arbitrary, unreasonable, or based on irrelevant considerations. The court also examined the extent of the powers conferred on the appellate authority to modify orders passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 130(2) of the GST Act.
The court observed that Section 107(11) provides wide-ranging powers to the appellate authority to modify orders passed under Section 130(2) by the adjudicating authority. It emphasized that as long as the appellate authority’s decision is based on relevant considerations and is not manifestly unjust or unreasonable, the court has limited scope to interfere with its discretion.
Referring to the judgment in Gunwant Lal Godawat’s case, the court noted that it interpreted the provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968, and did not directly apply to the present case concerning the powers of the appellate authority under the CGST/SGST Act.
The court further examined the provisions of Section 73 of the Gold Control Act, which deals with giving the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. It clarified that Section 73 applies only to confiscations authorized by the Gold Act and not those adjudged under the rules preceding the Gold Act. Therefore, the value of gold for determining the fine in lieu of confiscation should be assessed based on the date of the option exercised by the owner, not the date of seizure.
