NOUSHAD ALLAKKAT Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WC) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, MANJERI, THE ASST. TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. VII, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. VII, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE MANAGER INDIAN BANK, MALAPPURAM BRANCH, MALAPPURAM – 2018 (10) TMI 1189 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Invocation of Bank guarantee by respondents before prosecuting the appeal by petitioner – petitioner's case is that if the respondents invoke the bank guarantee, the petitioner's right to statutory remedy becomes illusory – Held that:- Indeed, in terms of Section 107 of the Act, read with Rule 108 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules; to appe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r Section 129 of the Act, for the supplier's failure to collect IGST . The petitioner has got the goods released on his furnishing the bank guarantee, though. 2. At any rate, faced with adverse orders, the petitioner wants to file a statutory appeal. But before it can prosecute the appeal, the 4th respondent threatens, the petitioner apprehends, to invoke the bank guarantee. So it has filed this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner's counsel, the appellate forum itself was very recently created, and still the procedural mechanism has not yet been fully put in place. In the meanwhile, if the respondents invoke the bank guarantee, the petitioner's right to statutory remedy becomes illusory. 4. The petitioner also seeks an
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
has submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy and, so, it can approach the appellate authority. 7. Heard Sri Hariharan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Jasmine, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. Indeed, in terms of Section 107 of the Act, read with Rule 108 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules; to appeal, the petitioner has three months' time from the date of Ext.P7 impugned order. But it may be inequitable for the respondent authorities to invoke the bank guarantee before the limitation to appeal ends. 9. I, therefore, dispose of this Writ Petition holding that the respondent will not invoke the bank guarantee for three months. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =