Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 1099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ARUN BHANSALI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, JJ.
Abdus Sami Salfi - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 892 of 2024
Decided On : 18-01-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sharad Kothari.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Mr. Hemant Dutt.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court addressed the validity of provisions limiting appellate authority's discretion and granted interim relief pending further proceedings.
Headnote:
(A) CGST/RGST Act, 2017 - Section 107(4) - Notification dated 02.11.2023 - The petitioner challenges the validity of provisions restricting the appellate authority's discretion to condone delays in filing appeals. The notification provides an extended period of limitation for certain cases, raising concerns about its rationale. (Paras 2, 3)
(B) Interim Relief - The petitioner is prepared to deposit 12.5% of the tax in dispute, and the court stays recovery of the remaining amount pending further proceedings. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner questions the validity of Section 107(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, and the notification dated 02.11.2023, which affects the timeline for filing appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court allows time for the respondents to file a reply and stays recovery of the disputed tax amount if the petitioner deposits the specified percentage.
Issues: The main issue is the validity of the provisions limiting the appellate authority's discretion and the rationale behind the notification's effective date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for a rational basis for the notification's provisions and allows interim relief pending further proceedings.
Result: Interim order granted.
ORDER :
Learned counsel submits that an advance copy of the petition has been served on learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Further submissions have been made that the petitioner has questioned the validity of provisions of Section 107(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 ('the Act') as well as notification dated 02.11.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
3. Submissions have been made that the provisions of Section 107(4) of the Act restricts the right of the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing appeal by one month only and that though, notification dated 02.11.2023 has been issued inter alia providing for extended period of limitation in cases where the orders have been passed on or before 31.03.2023, the said date has no rationale, inasmuch as, when the order was issued on 02.11.2023, in several other cases where the orders were passed even after 31.03.2023, in those cases also the appeals had already become barred by limitation.
4. Further submissions have been made that petitioner is prepared to deposit 12½ % amount of the 'tax in dispute' in terms of the notification dated 02.11.2023 (Annex-4).
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for time to complete their instructions in the matter/file reply.
6. Time prayed for is allowed.
7. List the petition on 21.02.2024.
8. In the meanwhile and till the next date, in case the petitioner deposits 12.5% of the amount of 'tax in dispute' within a period of one week, the recovery of/action qua rest of the amount pursuant to the demand dated 21.07.2023 (Annex-2) shall remain stayed.
9. For the rest of the amount, the petitioner would submit solvent security to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-D, Ward-2, Jodhpur Zone-I.
10. As the interim order has been passed in presence of learned counsel for the respondents, they would be free to seek vacation of the interim order after filing response to the writ petition.
