Home Case Index All Cases GST 2019 2019 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 1712 Records

• 2019 (12) TMI 1345 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
  

  Refund of unutilized ITC - Rejection on the ground that the appellant had already debited the entire ITC of inputs in their electronic ledger that had been claimed in the refunds claims and some amount out of that amount, were rejected by the adjudicating authority - month of July 2017, August, 2017, September, 2017, October, 2017 and November, 2017 separately - Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority was required to allow the re-credit of the amount already debited to the extent of rejection, but the adjudicating authority has not allowed the re-credit. The provisions do not stipulate that in the case of non submission of invoices etc., the re-credit should not be allowed. Thus, the impugned order to the extent of not allowing the re-credit of the amount already debited by the appellant, to the extent of rejection without allowing the proper opportunity to present his case is not legally correct and therefore, the impugned orders is set aside to that extent and direct the adjudicating authority to allow the appellant to present his case regarding not allowing re-credit of the amount already debited to the extent of rejection - Further, the department is free to take appropriate action as per law to recover the ITC of inputs if the appellant had availed ITC on inputs without having proper documents/invoices etc.

  Recovery of excess amounts sanctioned provisionally for the refund claim file for the month September, 2017 and October, 2017 - appellant has contested that amount cannot be recovered when the re-credit was admissible - HELD THAT:- The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as sanction of refund in cash and allowing of re-credit in the electronic register cannot be considered as same thing. Since, the amount was excess sanctioned in cash; the same is recoverable in cash along with interest. However, the re-credit to the appellant is admissible.

  Appeals disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1344 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
  

  Permission for withdrawal of appeals - Refund of accumulated credit - export of finished goods - deficiency memo served alleging therein that the Value as per GST-1, GSTR-3B and RFD-01A is mismatched and advised them to apply fresh refund application after rectification of above deficiency - HELD THAT:- The appellant has now requested to allow them to withdraw their appeals. Since, the appellant has requested to allow them to withdraw their appeals, their appeals are allowed to be withdrawn - appeals dismissed as withdrawn.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1343 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction of appellate authority - Demand of GST and penalty - rejection of E-way Bill - rejection on the ground that E-Way Bill Part B is not generated - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority Sh. J.I. Patel, State Tax Officer-I, Mobile Squad, Amirgadh (Gujarat) has passed the impugned order On 22.08.2018 which is not in the jurisdiction of this appellate authority. Section 6(3) of the CGST Act specifically mandates that any proceedings for rectification, appeal and revision, wherever applicable, of any order passed by an officer appointed under CGST Act shall not lie before an officer appointed under the SGST or UTGST Act. Similar provisions exist in SGST/UTGST Act also. In this case, appeal shall lie before the jurisdictional authority of SGST, Gujarat.

  The appeal filed by the appellant dismissed for the reason being beyond jurisdiction of this appellate authority.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1342 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
  

  Refund of IGST paid - export of services - rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates - HELD THAT:- The appellant had exported the service on payment of IGST and claimed the refund of IGST paid on export of services. Rule 89(2) (c) of CGST Rules 2017 stipulates that the refund application shall be accompanied by the documentary evidences - from the clarification issued by CBEC vide para no. 12 of Circular no. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.18, it is ample clear that a' statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank Realization Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) is required in case of export of services. Though the appellant vide their submission dated 22.01.19 has now submitted the statement containing the number and date of invoices but they have not submitted the Bank Realization Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) in this regards.

  The appellant vide their letter dated 04.02.19 has submitted to this office the unsigned three inward payment customer advice dated 24.01.2019 issued by Standard Chartered - On perusal of these advices, it is found that no references in respect of invoice no. are available. Besides it, in all these advices, in the Column of Remittance Amount, USD 100.00 only are mentioned whereas as per statement of invoice submitted by the appellant, invoice amount in USD 23250 is in one invoice and invoice amount USD 31850 is in the another invoice. Therefore, these inward payment customer advice dated 24.01.2019 issued by Standard Chartered can not be accepted as Bank Realisation Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC).

  Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1341 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
  

  Rejection of refund for Central Excise duty paid on the goods cleared by various invoices - impugned goods returned as rejected from registered buyer under Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - refund rejected on the ground that the identity of returned goods/rejected goods cannot be identified with the goods sent originally to the receiver by the appellant - rejection also on the ground that receiver of goods who returned the goods are registered with GSTIN and therefore they were required to return the rejected goods to the appellant as supply in terms of section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

  HELD THAT:- There is a basic condition that the goods are identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer. But in the instant matter, the records have been so maintained that the proper officer is not in a position to ascertain the factual identification of returned goods from the records maintained by the appellant. The appellant has also failed to put forth any reasons as to when the subject goods were initially removed in the unit quantity as "Nos" then why the entry of said returned goods in their register have only been made in the unit quantity as "weight in MT". Thus this also creates a doubt - Therefore, there are no force in the contention of the appellant and hold that the appellant has in all fronts failed to establish that the goods are identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer.

  Rejection of refund claims also on the reason that the receiver of the goods are registered with GSTN and therefore they were required to return the rejected goods to the appellant as supply in terms of section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not disputed the findings of the adjudicating authority that the receiver of goods namely M/s Damodar Valley Corporation are registered with GSTN bearing GSTN-20AABCD0541MIZ5 and M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited are registered with GSTN bearing GSTN-33AAACN1121C1ZG. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable in view of the clear provision of law which stipulates that the registered person shall be eligible for refund of the duty paid under the existing law only where such goods are returned by a person, other than a registered person. But in the instant matter the goods were returned by the registered person, therefore refund is not admissible in the instant matter on this reason also. Besides, the proviso to section 142(1) of the Act provides that if the said goods are returned by a registered person, the return of such goods shall be deemed to be a supply. The goods returned by M/s Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited who are registered person, should be treated as 'Deemed Supply' in their hands in terms of proviso to section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. M/s Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited were required to charge GST on the Deemed Supply.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1332 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
  

  Rectification of error - Appellant have submitted that the impugned AAAR order dated 14.03.2019 needed to be rectified owing to the presence of error, which is apparent from the face of record - Circular No. CBEC-102/21/2019-GST dated 28.06.2019 issued by the CBIC - HELD THAT:- It is conceded that the Ruling made in the impugned AAAR Order is contrary to the interpretation of the legal provision as envisaged by the Board, and since the said Board Circular is beneficial in nature, the same needed to be applied retrospectively in keeping with the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment, relied upon by the Applicant.

  The additional/Penal interest recovered by the Applicant from their customers against the delayed payment of monthly instalments of the loan extended to such customers, would be exempt from GST in terms of SI. 27 of the Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Impugned order rectified.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1331 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
  

  Rectification of error - mistake apparent on the face of the record - intermediary services - whether the services rendered by the Appellant was export of service or not, and not the classification of services as is being made out by the Appellant vide the submissions being made in present application? - HELD THAT:- Under the GST law, there are certain goods and services, which have declared either as non-taxable supplies or as an exempt supply in terms of section 2(78) and section 2(47) of the CGST Act, 2017. While Schedule Ill to the CGST Act, 2017 enumerate the activities or transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services, goods and services, which have been declared exempt supply are notified by the Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 respectively. Therefore, we are of the opinion that provision of section 97(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017 gives us the jurisdiction to decide whether any goods or services or both are liable to GST or not. The aforesaid provision does not enable us to determine the place of supply of any goods or services or both. Hence, the Appellant has misinterpreted the provision of section 97(2)(e) ibid - it is discernible that there is clearly dispute in the interpretation by the Appellate Authority and that of the Appellant with regard to section of the CGST Act, 2017.

  Since there is dispute in the interpretation of the legal provisions of section 97(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017, which certain leaves the scope for argument and debate, there is absolutely no question of any error apparent from the face of record, as was being made out by the Appellant - the allegations, made by the Appellant with regard to the error crept in the impugned order which is apparent from the face of record, is without any rationale, and hence do not merit consideration.

  Application rejected.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1329 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
  

  Levy of GST - Educational Institution - separate persons/entities or not - Charitable Society, having the main object and factually engaged in imparting Medical Education - requirement of registration in view of the provisions of section 23 of the said act - taxable supply or not - Challenge to AAR decision - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that M/s. Kasturba Health Society was constituted in the year 1964 with the main objective of catering to the health needs of rural population of India. It is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. On the contrary, M/s. MGIMS is a medical institution, which is a joint venture of the Central Government, and the State Government of Maharashtra, and the Appellant Society having the agreed arrangement of funding the said project in the ratio of 50:25:25 respectively. The above said 25% of the operational cost to be borne by the Appellant Society will be collected from the fees paid by the students and recoupment charges received from the patients availing treatment in the said medical institute. The operation of this medical institute is controlled and regulated by the Governing Council, which comprises of 10 members and a chairman. Out of these 10 members, 5 members are nominated by the Appellant Society, while 5 members are nominated from the Central Government and the State Government, which, inter alia, regulate and supervise the teaching and training procedures adopted by the said Medical Institution.

  It is adequately clear that the Appellant Society and M/s. MGIMS, the medical institute, which is a joint venture undertaking of the Central Government, State Government and the Appellant Society, and which is controlled and regulated by the Governing Council comprising of members, which also includes the nominated members from the Central Government and State Government besides the members nominated from the Appellant Society are separate entities/persons having their own role and functions. Thus, we completely agree with the AAR findings in this regard, who also observed the above said facts, and accordingly, inferred that the Appellant society and M/s. MGIMS are two separate and independent persons in so far as the GST law is concerned - MGIMS and the Appellant Society are two separate establishment.

  The Appellant have relied upon the various documentary evidences, viz.- grant by the Central and State Govt. in the name of KHS for running the medical institute, e.g., MGIMS; Pension Fund registration, which are in the name of KHS for the employees working at MGIMS; Grant of PAN is in the name of KHS through which all the financial transaction relating to MGIMS are reported to Central Govt.; registration in the name of KHS for carrying out the Research activities in the fields of Medical Education and Health Care by the staff working at MGIMS granted by the Dept. of Science and Technology of Govt. of India; for the purpose of regulating the transaction relating to MGIMS in foreign currency the registration granted under FCRA in the name of KHS alone and the transaction of MGIMS are not required to report separately, the ownership and title of the land on which MGIMS is functioning also in the name of KHS - It is opined that the above documentary evidences relied upon by the Appellant do not detract MGIMS from the fact that it is MGIMS, which is affiliated with the State Universities and monitored, controlled and regulated by the Medical Council of India. The role of the Appellant society is merely as the caretaker of the said medical institute, which is responsible for its management and administration as per the agreements entered by the Appellant Society with the Central Governments and State Government of Maharashtra. Thus, the core function of providing the medical institution is carried out by MGIMS, and not by the Appellant Society. This adequately proves its separate and independent existence as distinct entity from the Appellant Society.

  Since, the Appellant Society, does not provide the said Medical education, the question raised above is not proper and correct, and hence not answered - other issues not maintainable in terms of the Clause (a) of section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the transaction with respect to which the Appellant has asked the question, is not pertaining to the Appellant.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1320 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Grant of Bail - offence under section 132(1)(b)(c)(1) of the GST Act - Evasion of GST - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the magnitude of the economic offence said to have been committed by the petitioner and others causing huge loss to the State exchequer, posing grave threat to the new regime of GST aimed to achieve rapid growth in trade and commerce in the country, at this stage when the investigation of the case is in progress and many more facts in relation to the commission of such well planned and designed to economic offence with all the expertise are likely to be unearthed; this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1317 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to file the rejoinder. Let the same be filed within six weeks.

  List on 20.07.2020.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1295 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Filing of Form “TRAN-I” - inability to upload the details of un-utilized Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that Respondent authorities were having complete record of already registered persons and at present they are free to verify fact and figures of any Petitioner thus inspite of being aware of complete facts and figures, the Respondent cannot deprive Petitioners from their valuable right of credit.

  The present petition allowed with permission/modification to file the said Statutory Form TRAN-I by 31.01.2020.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1289 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Benefit of un-utilized ITC accrued - filing of statutory Form “TRAN-I” - HELD THAT:- It is conveyed that the date for filing annual returns has been extended from 31.12.2019 to 31.1.2020.

  The present petition is allowed with permission/modification to file the said Statutory Form TRAN-I by 31.01.2020.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1278 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Confiscation - section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has already paid the amount, which is more than the amount of fine in lieu of confiscation, in terms of the order of confiscation passed under section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the conveyance.

  Stand over to 23.01.2020.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1276 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of application - Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Learned counsels for the respondents accept notice

  List on 14.01.2020.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1274 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of arrest of the corpus – Sureshbhai, son of Ugarchand Gadhecha, by the State Tax Officer-3, Enforcement, DIV-2, Ahmedabad - HELD THAT:- The corpus – Sureshbhai, son of Ugarchand Gadhecha, who was arrested by the State Tax Officer-3, Enforcement, DIV-2, Ahmedabad, and who is in judicial custody at Sabarmati Central Jail at Ahmedabad since 06.12.2019, and who is produced before this Court today pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.12.2019, is set at liberty, forthwith.

  This order is passed reserving liberty to the State Authorities.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1270 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Initiation of proceedings by the Stage GST officers where Central GST officers have already initiated the proceedings - proper officer - sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - It was submitted that there cannot be two parallel investigations under the State Act as well as the Central Act - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice returnable on 23rd January, 2020.

  By way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned inquiry proceedings.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1269 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Filing of Form GST TRAN-2 - transitional Input tax credit - inability to claim input tax credit on various eligible goods - extension of time period beyond what is prescribed for filing of revised GST TRAN-I - Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - vires of Rule120A of the CGST Rules - CBIC Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 - HELD THAT:- The Petitioners remained under the confusion created by the misleading language in Form GST TRAN-1 & TRAN-2. We have to be mindful of the fact that the introduction of GST has revamped the entire taxation regime in the country. GST seeks to consolidate multiple taxes into one. GST legislations have incorporated transitional provisions to ensure that the transition to the GST regime is smooth and that the input tax credit/ benefits earned in the erstwhile taxation regime are not lost. Input tax credit is a property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The taxpayers could not be deprived of the same, without authority of law. In terms of the transitional provisions, there was ambiguity and confusion amongst taxpayers. This was accentuated with technical glitches, which resulted in several tax payers not being able to file the requisite Form GST TRAN-1 within time.

  In M/s Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd [2019 (7) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT] also, the court accepted the error in filling up of the requisite information to be inadvertent and directed the Respondents to either open the online portal or to enable the petitioner to file the rectified Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or accept the same manually - The factual position in the present case is not any different and thus, we allow all petitions and direct the respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the respective petitioners to file the Form TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 06.01.2020, if not already, filed pursuant to the interim order dated 01.05.2019.

  Respondents shall proceed to process petitioners’ claim in accordance with law once the Form GST TRAN–1 and TRAN-2 are filed - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1268 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Duty Drawback - Refund of IGST - transitional credit - Vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Circular No. 37/2018- CUSTOMS dated 09.10.2018 - HELD THAT:- Though, the challenge in the present petition is also to the vires of the circulars enumerated above, however, Petitioners are primarily concerned with the refund of IGST paid on goods exported by them during the transitional period. The Respondents’ concern is well founded that the Petitioners should not take undue advantage of the drawback scheme. The purpose behind impugned circular is to ensure that the exporters do not claim AIRs of duty drawback and simultaneously avail tax neutralization under GST as this would amount to exporter availing double benefits of neutralization of taxes. However, the fact remains that at no point of time, the petitioners declared that they would forego the claim of IGST refund. During the transitional period, Petitioners have inadvertently claimed benefit under a wrong provision, since there was lack of clarity with respect to the refund of IGST. Should we deny the benefit simply for this mistake when the cardinal rule is that taxes should not exported?

  Government would have to embrace initiatives that would help the taxpayers in the transformation to the new regime. This would require understanding the difficulties faced by the industry which would be crucial step for success of GST law. Instant case is one such example where Petitioners have been victim of technical glitches on account of confusion during transitional phase. We are thus of the view that taxpayers like the Petitioners should not be denied the substantive benefit of the IGST paid by them on exports.

  The Petitioners have enclosed the cost analysis which captures the denial of IGST refund causing severe financial crunch to the exporters business. The impact is significant. To us such an error, that is purely inadvertent and not intentional, should not come in the way of calming refund of IGST. The respondents have also been alive to the situation and in matters relating to technical glitches, they have constituted IT Redressal Grievance Committees to address the grievances of the taxpayers - there is no reason as to why the Petitioners should not be extended similar benefit. Since the Respondents have expressed their apprehension about double benefit of neutralisation of taxes, it would be appropriate that before issuing final directions, Respondents verify the extent of the duty drawback availed by the Petitioners and also whether they have availed duty drawback / CENVAT credit of Central Excise and Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by them.

  List on 27th April, 2020.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1267 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of petition - alternate remedy of appeal - refund claim - detention of goods alongwith vehicle - e-way bill - It is the appellant-writ petitioner’s case that it is the Corporation which, instead of raising two separate e-way bills for two separate consignments, had raised one e-way bill for the total amount on both the consignments - HELD THAT:- Sub-Sections (1), (6) and (7) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, it is evident that, while an appeal can be filed against any order or decision of an adjudicating authority, the pre- condition, for such an appeal to be filed, is payment of the demanded tax or penalty and 10% of the disputed amount.

  In the present case, there is no dispute regarding tax and it is the appellant-writ petitioner’s case that the tax in its entirety has been paid to the Corporation which, in turn, is obligated to remit the said amount to the State Tax Department. Since the appellant-writ petitioner disputes levy of penalty in its entirety, they would, in terms of Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, only be required to deposit 10% of such penalty and as a result, in terms of Sub-Section (7) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, the remaining penalty need not be paid. That does not, however, solve the problem which the appellant-writ petitioner faces i.e. for release of the goods detained by the respondent-authorities. If, on the other hand, he were to comply with the demand notice issued under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act then, in terms of Section 129(5) of the CGST Act, on payment of the amount referred to in Sub-Section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in Sub-Section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded, in which event the goods would be released.

  In the facts and circumstances of the present case, to modify the order of the learned Single Judge and, instead, direct the appellant-writ petitioner to deposit the entire amount of penalty i.e. for a sum of ₹ 1,70,688/- with the concerned authorities, and furnish proof of deposit of the said amount along with the Appeal to be preferred under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act - On such deposit, and on an Appeal being preferred thereafter within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, the Appeal shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority, and shall be adjudicated on its merits. As soon as an Appeal is preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner, enclosing thereto proof of payment of total penalty amount of ₹ 1,70,688/-, the subject goods shall be released in their favour.

  It is made clear that, in case the Appeal is decided in the appellant-writ petitioner’s favour, they shall then be entitled for refund of the amount deposited by them pursuant to the order - appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (12) TMI 1266 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy of appeal - Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal, no interference is being called for by this Court in the matter.

  The writ petition stands dismissed on ground of alternative remedy.

  ---

123456........ 86