Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Government Revenue Dept – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. gst tribunal appeal pending amid recovery demands. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties dispute tribunal's interim stay jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. cgst sections 111-113 outline tribunal powers. (Para 7) |
| 4. inherent appellate power includes interim reliefs. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. rules enable interlocutory stay applications. (Para 13) |
| 6. precedent affirms incidental stay authority. (Para 14) |
| 7. direct approach to tribunal; limited stay granted. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
Judgment :
G. S. Kulkarni, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting issue as to whether the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), in its constitution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(CGST Act), has jurisdiction to pass interim orders.
2. An Order-in-Original was passed under the provisions of the CGST Act against the petitioner on 18th December 2023 whereunder a tax liability stands confirmed against the petitioner. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. By an Order dated 12th June 2024, the Appellate Authority rejected the Petitioner’s Appeal by passing an Order-in-Appeal.
3. The Petitioner therea
GST Appellate Tribunal possesses inherent jurisdiction to grant interim stay on recovery proceedings pending appeal, incidental to powers under Sections 111 & 113 CGST Act to pass orders as it thinks....
Statutory rights to appeal cannot be compromised due to governmental inaction, and consistency must be maintained in interim orders affecting pre-deposit requirements.
The court emphasized the necessity for uniformity in interim relief, ensuring that no litigant is penalized for the government's failure, thus advocating for consistency in deposit requirements under....
The Court cannot grant interim relief after a certificate for appeal has been issued, as it lacks jurisdiction to modify dismissed orders.
Provisions of Section 11B that it governs refund of duty and interest from the relevant date and not penalty. Considering the provisions of Section 11B (supra), I find that the amount of penalty paid....
The proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Act bars appeals against interlocutory orders unless they determine rights significantly or have finality.
The Writ Court reaffirms the necessity to pursue statutory remedies provided under the GST Act before seeking divorce from these provisions, emphasizing compliance with appeal conditions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
