Case Law Details
Salve Maria International Vs State Tax Officer (IB) (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court directed petitioner to prefer an appeal before GST Tribunal within one month of the constitution of GST Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
Facts- The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing promotional and referral services to foreign universities and colleges. According to the petitioner, the services rendered by the petitioner amount to export of service, for which there is no liability under the GST regime. However, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, culminating in order, imposing on the petitioner a liability for tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner challenged order by filing a statutory appeal, which was rejected by impugned order.
The petitioner has approached before this Court by filing this writ petition, on account of the fact that the petitioner is unable to file a Second Appeal against impugned order u/s. 112 of the CGST/SGST Acts, since the Tribunal has not been so far constituted.
Conclusion- Held that this writ petition can be disposed of, continuing the interim order and permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Tribunal, within one month of the constitution of the Tribunal. I make it clear that if any additional amounts are to be remitted by the petitioner for maintaining an appeal, in accordance with statutory provision, such amounts shall also be remitted by the petitioner at the time of filing the appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing promotional and referral services to foreign universities and colleges. According to the petitioner, the services rendered by the petitioner amount to export of service, for which there is no liability under the GST regime. However, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, culminating in Ext.P7 order, imposing on the petitioner a liability for tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 order by filing a statutory appeal, which was rejected by Ext.P9 order. As can be seen from Ext.P7 order itself, the tax along with interest has been remitted by the petitioner in full and what remains to be remitted is only penalty. The petitioner has approached before this Court by filing this writ petition, on account of the fact that the petitioner is unable to file a Second Appeal against Ext.P9 order u/s. 112 of the CGST/SGST Acts, since the Tribunal has not been so far constituted.
2. This writ petition was admitted on 17.06.2022 and has been pending in this Court till today along with the stay of recovery of any further amounts from the petitioner. Owing to the orders issued by the Division Bench of this Court, it is expected that the Tribunal will be constituted shortly. In the light of the above, I find no reason to keep this writ petition pending before this Court.
Though the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Board of Excise and Customs, would submit that further amounts should be remitted by the petitioner, taking into consideration the fact that the entire tax along with interest has already been remitted by the petitioner, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, continuing the interim order and permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Tribunal, within one month of the constitution of the Tribunal. I make it clear that if any additional amounts are to be remitted by the petitioner for maintaining an appeal, in accordance with statutory provision, such amounts shall also be remitted by the petitioner at the time of filing the appeal.
Author Bio
