Case Law Details
Sri Ram Construction Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon disposal of the appeal, in case adjudication order is upheld or even modified, a fresh demand has to be raised in Form GST APL-04. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the impugned Garnishee notice has become infructuous and it cannot be given effect to in view of stay operating at the appellate stage. Therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of by holding as such.
Learned counsel for the Respondent CGST Mr. Amit Kumar does not dispute that upon filing of appeal and deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount, recovery of any balance amount shall remain stayed till the appeal is decided. He also does not dispute that in such an event, Garnishee notice arising out of the adjudication order cannot be given effect to. Dependent upon the outcome of the appeal, a fresh demand shall have to be raised in the prescribed format and in case the Assessee fails to pay the amount within the stipulated time, steps for recovery through special mode can also be made.
We have taken note of the original cause of action raised by the writ petitioner also the subsequent development brought on record through the supplementary affidavit filed on 08.06.2022. Upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount during pendency of two appeals preferred by the petitioner, recovery of any remaining balance is deemed to have to been stayed in view of Section 107 Sub-section (6) and (7) of CGST Act, 2017. The impugned Garnishee proceeding therefore, cannot be given effect to and in fact has become infructuous. Any fresh demand arising out of the decision of the Appellate Authority can be realized by issuance of GST APL-04. As such, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending. It is disposed of as infructuous.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
