Bhupal Singh Kanwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ritu Bahri, CJ

There is a delay of 61 days in preferring the present Special Appeal. For the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay (IA/1/2024), the same is allowed, and the delay is condoned.

In this case, three separate orders have been issued to the appellant dated 23.09.2022, 26.09.2022 & 01.10.2022 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) under Section 73(1) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and as per these orders, the amount assessed is Rs. 1,86,126.50/-, Rs. 5,31,825.00/- & Rs. 96,790/-respectively.

With respect to this demand, counsel for the appellant states that, even if this demand amount is to be paid before the Appellate Authority, under Section 107(6)(b) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, he is required to pay only 10% of the disputed tax amount in each order before the Appellate Authority. However, by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, he has been asked to furnish a bank guarantee qua the entire amount demanded in the above-said three orders, which is against the provisions of Section 107(6) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Notice of motion.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Keeping in view the provisions of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2024 is being modified that the appellant will deposit only 10% of the amount assessed in each order, as per the orders dated 23.09.2022, 26.09.2022 & 01.10.2022 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition).

In the meantime, the orders dated 23.09.2022, 26.09.2022 & 01.10.2022 shall remain stayed, and the bank account of the appellant shall be de-freezed.

The Special Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.