SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
AMA PRIVATE LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 977 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 1689 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 3729 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.K.P.PRADEEP, SHRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN, SHRI.HAREESH M.R., SHRI.T.T.BIJU, SMT.T.THASMI, SMT.M.J.ANOOPA, SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.SATHISAN, SHRI.JAVED HAIDER, SMT.DONA AUGUSTINE, SHRI.ABHIRAM SUNISH, SHRI.SHIBU B.S, SHRI.BIJU P.PAUL, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.R.SREEJITH, SMT.K.KRISHNA, SMT.PARVATHY MENON

The court permits filing appeals against penalty orders under the CGST Act within three months after the Tribunal's start, maintaining interim orders.

Headnote:This judgment examines the challenge to penalties imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners filed the Writ Petitions after their appeals were rejected. The court finds that the Appellate Tribunal is not functioning, thus allowing the petitioners to appeal within three months once it starts. The interim orders continue, clarifying that compliance with Section 112(8) negates the need for renewing bank guarantees.

Result: Writ Petitions disposed with directions to file appeals once the Tribunal commences.

Table of Content
1. aggrieved by imposed penalties under cgst act (Para 1 , 2)
2. court grants leave to petitioners for appeal (Para 3)
3. clarification on bank guarantees (Para 4)

J U D G M E N T

In all these cases, the petitioners are aggrieved by the penalty imposed upon them under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 . Even though they filed appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the orders of penalty, the same was rejected by the first appellate authority. It was in these circumstances, these Writ Petitions were filed challenging the penalty orders as well as the appellate orders.

2. In all these cases, interim orders were granted by this Court subject to certain conditions. It is reported that the conditions imposed by this Court have been complied with and the said interim orders are subsisting.

3. Evidently, the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court in view of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal for considering the second appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 has not started functioning. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, as the petitioners have complied with the condition imposed by this Court in the interim orders, these writ petitions can be disposed of retaining the said interim orders and granting permission to the petitioners to file appeals within a specified time, once the Tribunal starts functioning.

4. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall file appeals against the impugned orders before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of three months from the date on which the said Tribunal starts functioning. In case such appeals are filed within the time specified above, the interim orders already granted by this Court shall continue to operate during the pendency of such appeals.

It is clarified that, in all these cases, if the petitioners have already complied with the statutory stipulations contemplated under Sec. 112(8) of the CGST Act, the bank guarantee, if any, furnished by the petitioners, need not be renewed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top