Case Law Details
Veira Electronics Private Limited Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad high court)
The case of Veira Electronics Private Limited versus the State of U.P. and others unfolds in the Allahabad High Court. This article delves into the arguments presented by the petitioner, challenging a notification related to the extension of the appeal deadline under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Notification Details: The petitioner’s counsel highlights Notification No.53/2023-Central Tax, asserting an extension till January 31, under Section 107 of the CGST Act. However, concerns arise as the notification seems to exclude orders under Sections 129 and 130 of the Act.
2. Discriminatory Aspect: The petitioner’s representative, Mr. Shubham Agarwal, argues that the notification’s focus on Sections 73 and 74 is discriminatory. He contends that Sections 129 and 130, pertaining to penalty provisions, should be included for a comprehensive coverage of appeals.
3. Court’s Consideration : The court, upon due consideration, refrains from issuing a mandamus but suggests that the government should consider rectifying the apparent gap. It emphasizes the need for inclusivity by extending the benefit granted to Sections 73 and 74 to Sections 129 and 130.
4. Direction to Government: A direction is given to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, urging a prompt review of the matter. The court emphasizes the importance of addressing the observed lacuna and calls for an early resolution.
5. Adjournment and Liberty: The case is adjourned sine die, granting liberty to the petitioner’s counsel to bring up the matter at an appropriate time. This procedural step allows for further developments in the case.
6. Impleading Additional Respondents: The court directs the petitioner’s counsel to implead Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and G.S.T. Council as respondents. This step ensures comprehensive representation and necessary communication.
Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court, in the Veira Electronics case, refrains from a direct mandate but emphasizes the need for inclusivity in the notification. The direction to the government to address the lacuna highlights the importance of fair and comprehensive coverage in matters of tax appeal deadlines. As the case adjourns, the petitioner retains the liberty to revisit the issue, and additional respondents are brought into the legal discourse for a more thorough examination. The outcome of this case could potentially shape the landscape of appeal deadlines under the CGST Act, ensuring equitable treatment for various sections.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Subham Agarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Standing Counsel.
2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a notification has been issued bearing No.53/2023-Central Tax by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, dated November 2, 2023, wherein the time to file appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been extended till January 31, He however, submits that this notification only deals with the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act and does not take into account the orders passed under Sections 129 and 130 of the Act.
3. Mr. Shubham Agarwal, has argued that it is highly discriminatory as this notification deals only with the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act and does not look into the penalty provisions under Sections 129 and 130 of the Act. He submits that these sections should have also been included in the said notification and this lacuna should be looked into by the Government.
4. Upon due consideration, I am of the view that this Court is not in a position to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to include Sections 129 and 130 of the Act in the said notification. However, I am of the view that the Government can very well consider adding these two Sections in the said notification, so that the benefit that has been provided for the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act can be extended to Sections 129 and 130 of the Act.
5. In the light of the above, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, is directed to look into this aspect of the matter at the earliest.
6. The matter is adjourned sine die with liberty granted to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to mention the same at the appropriate time.
7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is directed to implead Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and G.S.T. Council as respondents during the course of the day.
8. A copy of this order be served upon Sri Amit Mahajan, counsel appearing on behalf of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs so that necessary communication may be made by him to his client
