Polo International VS State Of Uttar Pradesh

In the legal proceedings, Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, representing the petitioner, and Sri B.K. Pandey, acting as the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, presented their arguments before the court. The petitioner initiated the current petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, contesting two orders: one dated 26th November 2019 issued in Appeal No. GST-03/19 by respondent no.2 under sections 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017; and another tax and penalty order No. 228 dated 5th September 2018 passed by respondent no.3 under similar sections of the aforementioned acts. Additionally, the petitioner sought a directive for respondent no.3 to refund the sum of Rs.31,304 deposited during the appeal process before respondent no.2.

The dispute revolves around the petitioner’s challenge to these orders, citing various legal provisions and seeking redress. Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, representing the petitioner, argued the case, presenting legal grounds for contesting the orders issued by the respondents. On the other hand, Sri B.K. Pandey, as the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, responded to the petitioner’s contentions, providing counterarguments and defending the validity of the orders issued by the respondents.

The petitioner’s plea is rooted in constitutional provisions, aiming to challenge the legality and implications of the orders passed by the respondents. Specifically, the petitioner contests the orders under Sections 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a refund of the amount deposited during the appeal process.

After hearing the arguments presented by both parties, the court considered the legal position and factual circumstances of the case. It was acknowledged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the goods subject to the dispute had already been released. In light of this acknowledgment and the prevailing legal framework, the court disposed of the instant petition. The court’s decision provided the petitioner with the option to pursue the remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019. This resolution reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that the petitioner’s grievances are addressed within the bounds of the law while upholding principles of fairness and justice.

The assertion is made that the impugned orders are indeed subject to appeal under Section 112 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, with a stipulated timeframe of 90 days from the communication of the order being appealed. However, the petitioner has chosen to bypass this avenue of appeal under Section 112, citing the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal as the grounds for doing so.

Learned standing counsel highlights the challenges faced by assesses in pursuing appeals due to the absence of constituted tribunals and their benches across various states and union territories. In response to this predicament, the Government issued the Central Goods and Service Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, published in the Gazette of India on 3rd December 2019. This order provides a remedy for such situations by stipulating that the three-month period for filing appeals shall commence from the date on which the President or State President of the Appellate Tribunal assumes office following its constitution under Section 109.

This clarification from learned standing counsel underscores the government’s recognition of the practical difficulties faced by assesses in accessing the appellate process due to the non-existence of constituted tribunals. The issuance of the Central Goods and Service Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, serves as a measure to mitigate these challenges and ensure access to justice for affected parties within the framework of the law.

In light of the circumstances wherein the appellate tribunal has yet to be constituted, it is emphasized that the petitioner can opt to wait and utilize the remedy of filing an appeal once the tribunal is established. This suggestion is put forward recognizing the practical challenges faced by the petitioner in pursuing the appeal process due to the absence of a constituted tribunal.

Furthermore, it is highlighted that since the goods that were subject to seizure have already been released, there is no immediate prejudice or harm inflicted upon the petitioner at present. This acknowledgment underscores the fact that the core issue regarding the seized goods has been resolved, thus mitigating any urgency in pursuing further legal recourse.

The learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrates fairness and transparency by admitting the aforementioned legal position and acknowledging the release of the goods. This admission indicates a willingness to engage with the legal proceedings in a constructive manner, recognizing the realities of the situation and working within the framework of the law to address any remaining concerns or grievances.

Taking into consideration the circumstances and arguments presented, the court resolves the instant petition by allowing the petitioner to avail themselves of the remedy provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019. This order serves as a mechanism to address the challenges arising from the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal, providing clarity on the timeline for filing appeals in such situations.

By disposing of the petition in this manner, the court enables the petitioner to pursue the avenue of filing an appeal before the Tribunal once it is constituted. This decision aligns with the legal framework established by the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, ensuring that the petitioner’s rights are upheld and allowing for a fair and just resolution within the parameters of the law.

In effect, this resolution provides a pathway for the petitioner to seek redress through the appellate process, thereby addressing any grievances stemming from the impugned orders. It reflects a balanced approach to resolving the matter, safeguarding the interests of all parties involved while upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: