Petitioner | Amar Kumar Saha |
Respondent | Dy. Commr. of Revenue & Ors. |
Decision by | Calcutta High Court |
Date of order or Judgement | 8-June-2022 |
Citation no. | 2022 (6) GSTPanacea 46 HC Calcutta MAT 714 of 2022 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022 |
Hon’ble Judge | Justice T. S. Sivagnanam |
Decision | In Favour of Assessee |
No Further Recovery- Any recovery proceeding initiated prior to expiry of the period of limitation for filing a statutory appeal, then such recoveries will have no sanction of law.
No Further Recovery-Facts of the Case
No Further Recovery-The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging an order passed by the respondents under section 74(9) of the CGST/SGST Act.
Main Prayer of petitioner is to grant a right to file an appeal when 20% of disputed amount already paid to revenue.
Argument Before Court
No Further Recovery-Petitioner’s Contention
No Further Recovery-The appellant submitted that as per the show-cause notice, the demand was around Rs. 4.93 crores.
During the adjudication process, the appellant had paid Rs. 50 lakhs and thereafter a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs has been recovered from the appellant by debiting the credit ledger account.
The percentage of the amount so far recovered is close to 20% of the entire demand.
The appellant preferred an appeal as against the order impugned in the writ petition, the appellant would have been required to pre-deposit only 10% of the tax in dispute.
Therefore, it is submitted that the interest of the revenue has been safeguarded and any further recovery without reference to the appellant would cause great prejudice to him.
It is submitted that before the time for filing a statutory appeal much prior to that recoveries have been started.
No Further Recovery-Respondent’s Argument
No Further Recovery-Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that as against the order impugned in the writ petition, the appellant ought to have filed an appeal and not a writ petition.
Furthermore, the authority, who issued the show-cause notice and adjudicated the same has sufficient jurisdiction to do so under the provisions of the relevant statutes.
Calcutta High Court Held
No Further Recovery-The Hon’ble High Court heard the learned advocates for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record.
The submission of the learned advocate for the appellant appears to be reasonable because 20% of the disputed amount of tax has already been recovered.
If any recovery proceeding has been initiated prior to expiry of the period of limitation for filing a statutory appeal, then such recoveries will have no sanction of law as it would, in effect make the appellate remedy infructuous.
We are of the view that till the writ petition is heard and disposed of, no further recovery shall be made from the appellant.
It is thereafter the matter can be listed before the Learned Single Bench for being heard and disposed of.
The writ appeal and the connected application is disposed of.
Download PDF
Amar Kumar Saha
For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court