TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Single Judge in imposing a condition to furnish bank guarantee to an extent of 25% of the amount mentioned in the show cause notice cannot be construed as an erroneous order to interfere in this intra court appeal on interim order. The contention of the appellant that appeal requires a deposit of only 10% and the filing of appeal on payment of 10% of the demand would automatically ensure stay of impugned order in terms of Sec.107(7) of the GST Act does not come to the rescue of the appellant to say that the impugned order is erroneous. The appellant has chosen to file the writ petition despite the opportunity of showing cause to the show cause notice is available to the appellant. Moreover, the right of appeal u/S 107 of the GST Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner is questioning the interim order in this intra Court appeal invoking Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. 2. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla for Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri G.S. Hulmani, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Shivaraj Ballolli, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as Sri Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.3 and perused the appeal papers. 3. The above referred show cause notice sought explanation as to why the Goods and Services Tax liability of Rs.16,23,82,230/-, attracting GST @ 18% for supplying ENA should not be imposed on the supply of Extra Neutral Alcohol. 4. Learned senior counsel referring to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 10% of the disputed liability. It is urged that condition to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of 25% of the amount demanded is unreasonable given the minimum statutory deposit contemplated while filing the appeal. 7. Learned senior counsel also relied upon Annexure-'A' letter dated 19.07.2017 of the Additional Chief Secretary of State Government to say that no GST could be levied on supply of ENA for human consumption. Therefore, it is prayed for setting aside the interim order dated 06.12.2021 in so far as it relates to directing the appellant to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of 25% of the amount demanded under the impugned show cause notice dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure-G). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be passed by the authority in response to the show cause notice. Under the circumstances, the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge in imposing a condition to furnish bank guarantee to an extent of 25% of the amount mentioned in the show cause notice cannot be construed as an erroneous order to interfere in this intra court appeal on interim order. 11. The contention of the appellant that appeal requires a deposit of only 10% and the filing of appeal on payment of 10% of the demand would automatically ensure stay of impugned order in terms of Sec.107(7) of the GST Act does not come to the rescue of the appellant to say that the impugned order is erroneous. The appellant has chosen to file the writ petition despite the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
