Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (7) TMI 912 - HC - GSTChallenge to order passed u/s 73 of the Goods and Services Act 2017 - cancellation of registration of petitioner - HELD THAT - The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner qua tax in view of the fact that the petitioner had admitted the demand of tax and deposited the same cannot be countenanced. So far as the demand of interest and penalty are concerned the plea raised can very well be raised by way of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act as rightly pointed out by counsel for the respondent no reason has been indicated in the petition seeking to bypass the remedy. The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal in accordance with law.
The Allahabad High Court, in a judgment dated 24.02.2025, dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017, which raised a tax demand of Rs. 76,274.45. The petitioner's registration was cancelled effective 31.07.2022, with no demand shown at that time. Subsequently, a notice under Section 73 was issued for FY 2020-21 demanding Rs. 1,23,247.15, to which the petitioner responded by depositing the tax and interest.The Court held that since the petitioner admitted and paid the outstanding tax, it cannot dispute the tax demand. Regarding the challenge to interest and penalty, the Court emphasized that such issues are "open to challenge under Section 107 of the Act," and the petitioner's failure to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy warranted dismissal of the writ petition. The Court stated, "no reason has been indicated in the petition seeking to bypass the remedy," and thus allowed the petitioner to file an appeal as per law.
|