Page 159 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] AGARWAL TIMBER SUPPLIERS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 61
2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 61 (Uttarakhand)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ. and Alok Kumar Verma, J.
AGARWAL TIMBER SUPPLIERS
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
1
Special Appeal No. 765 of 2019, decided on 6-8-2019
Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Existence of alternative remedy -
Appeal can be against any order or decision of an adjudicating authority on
payment of demanded tax or penalty and 10% of disputed amount - Petition
against seizure of goods dismissed by single judge on availability of alterna-
tive remedy - Tax in its entirety has been paid to the Corporation which, in
turn, was obligated to remit said amount to State Tax Department - Since peti-
tioner disputed levy of penalty in its entirety, only requirement was for it to
deposit 10% of such penalty to file an appeal - If assessee complied with de-
mand notice all proceedings in respect of notice shall be deemed to be con-
cluded, in which event goods would be released - Order of Single Judge modi-
fied with direction to petitioner to deposit entire amount of penalty with con-
cerned authorities, and furnish proof of deposit along with appeal - As soon as
petitioner prefers an appeal enclosing thereto proof of payment of total penal-
ty, subject goods to be released in petitioner’s favour - Section 107 of Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
Appeal disposed of
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Piyush Garg, Counsel, for the Appellant.
S/Shri C.S. Rawat, Additional Chief Standing Coun-
sel and V.K. Kapruwan, Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ. (Oral)]. - Heard Mr. Piyush
Garg, Learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Government, Mr. V.K. Kapru-
wan, Learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corpo-
ration and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of
admission.
2. This intra-Court appeal is preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner
aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 2190 of 2019, dated 31-7-2019, whereby the Learned Single Judge dis-
missed the Writ Petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
3. The appellant-writ petitioner purchased timber from the Uttarak-
hand Forest Development Corporation, a statutory Corporation created under
Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Act, 1974. The invoice raised
by the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation (for short “the Corpora-
tion”), on the appellant-writ petitioner, is said to be a tax invoice, meaning there-
by that both CGST and SGST were charged on the sale price of the goods. The
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2190 of 2019, decided on 31-7-2019 by Uttarakhand High
Court.
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  223