TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted were released to M/s. Blue Star Ltd. by making payment of Rs. 20,18,308/- on behalf of the Petitioner would not mean that appeal has to be filed by M/s. Blue Star Ltd. The said payment was made by M/s. Blue Star Ltd. for release of the goods in its capacity as an owner of the goods and the same was also deducted from the account of the Petitioner with M/s. Blue Star Ltd. Therefore, payment was made by M/s. Blue Star Ltd. for and on behalf of the Petitioner, thus, Respondent No. 1 was not justified in refusing to take the appeal on record. The counsel for the Respondents could not bring to notice any provision in the Act which would not entitle a person against whom the Order-in-Original is passed, but the tax and penalty has been pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit of Certiorari to call for the records of the case and peruse the same and issue appropriate directions or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to admit the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and hear them on the merits of the case and thereafter issue an order on merits in accordance with law; (d) any other writ or order or direction as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts in the present petition are as under :- The Petitioner is engaged in the business of transportation of goods on behalf of various customers and are also registered under Goods and Service Tax Act (for short CGST Act). 4. On 26th September 2019, the cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refused to take an appeal on record by making a note on the covering letter that payment of Rs. 20,18,308/- is made under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act by M/s. Blue Star Ltd., owner of the goods and the Petitioner being a transporter cannot file an appeal. 8. It is on this backdrop, the present petition is filed, seeking appropriate direction against the refusal of Respondent No. 1 to take appeal of the Petitioner on record. 9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents and with their assistance have perused the records of the case. 10. The Petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original is passed against the Petitioner imposing tax and penalty aggregating to Rs. 20,18,308/-. The owner of the goods M/s. Blue Star ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were being transported were released to M/s. Blue Star Ltd. by making payment of Rs. 20,18,308/- on behalf of the Petitioner would not mean that appeal has to be filed by M/s. Blue Star Ltd. The said payment was made by M/s. Blue Star Ltd. for release of the goods in its capacity as an owner of the goods and the same was also deducted from the account of the Petitioner with M/s. Blue Star Ltd. Therefore, payment was made by M/s. Blue Star Ltd. for and on behalf of the Petitioner, thus, Respondent No. 1 was not justified in refusing to take the appeal on record. The counsel for the Respondents could not bring to our notice any provision in the Act which would not entitle a person against whom the Order-in-Original is passed, but the tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
