Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : GM Powertech And Others Vs State of H.P & Others (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Appeal Number : CWP No. 5462 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 07/12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

GM Powertech And Others Vs State of H.P & Others (Himachal Pradesh High Court)

The order(s) of assessment made by the assessing authority, and, appertaining to GST levies, stand respectively embodied in Annexure(s) P-6 and P-7. However, the afore orders of assessment of GST, is, assailed through the instant petition.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the contesting litigants, it visibly appears that the recoursing by the writ petitioner, of, the extant remedy, is a gross mis-recoursing, as, Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, purveys an alternative remedy to the writ petitioner, too, make an appeal thereunder, against, the afore orders of assessment.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has not been able, to, convince this Court that the afore remedy is either not a befitting remedy, nor, is an efficacious remedy, as, he has not been able to make an argument, hence, falling within the exception, too, the jurisprudencial principle, embodying the canon qua upon availability of an alternative statutory remedy, vis-a-vis, the filing of the extant petition, the extant petition, is, still maintainable (a) exception whereof, is, comprised in palpable breaches being made by the assessing authority, vis-a-vis, the statutory provisions appertaining to the levy of GST, upon the petitioner firm, (b) whereupon alone the availability, of, the afore statutory remedy becomes both inefficacious, as well as, is not a befitting remedy. Consequently, the instant petition is not maintainable before this Court.

4. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court, to the mandate borne in sub Section 6, of Section 107 of the Act supra, wherein an imperative mandate is cast upon the aggrieved writ petitioner, too, for ensuring it’s filing a validly constituted appeal against the aforesaid orders of assessment, hence deposit 10% of the disputed sums of tax, and, also it’s being enjoined to deposit the entire quantum of admitted liability tax. His focus is centered, upon the factum, of the petitioner being enjoined to deposit 10%, of, the disputed sums of tax, and, the afore necessity of deposit of the afore percentum of tax determined, under the afore assessment orders, stand contended by him, too, render the afore alternative remedy to be inefficacious, as, the bank accounts of the writ petitioner firm rather stand frozen. He further submits that thereupon, he would be de-facilitated to maintain a duly constituted appeal, before the statutory authority concerned. For undoing the afore obstacle, the learned Sr. Additional Advocate General, states on instructions meted to him, that the respondents concerned, do not hold any objection if the bank concerned, is directed to, release into the account of the respondent concerned, 10% of the disputed sums, in satisfaction of the afore imperative statutory condition.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031