Likasan Traders vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petitions without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases. The petitioners are granted liberty to prefer appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) within the window period prescribed by the GSTAT's order dated 24.09.2025. This window period commences on 01.02.2026 or any date thereafter, but not later than 30.06.2026. The petitioners are directed to deposit 100% of the tax amount within eight weeks from the date of the order. Upon making this pre-deposit within the stipulated time, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioners until the GSTAT decides their appeals. The Court noted the amendment to Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Finance Act, 2025, which introduced a proviso regarding pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals, but the primary direction is to approach the GSTAT.

Facts

The petitioners, Likasan Traders and Sri Mukesh Dhoot, have filed writ petitions challenging orders-in-appeal dated 29.04.2025, which upheld orders-in-original imposing penalties. The appellate authority refused to interfere with these penalties. The petitions were filed after the orders-in-appeal were received on 12.08.2025. The core of the challenge lies in the subsequent functioning of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) and the procedural rules governing appeals to it. The petitioners seek to set aside the impugned orders as contrary to law and judicial precedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners can be relegated to prefer an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) given the commencement of its functioning and the relevant procedural rules? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners, represented by their counsel, submitted that due to the substantial amount of tax liability, they should be permitted to make a 100% deposit of the tax amount within a period of eight weeks. They are seeking a direction to this effect. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC and the Deputy Solicitor General of India, have not explicitly recorded arguments in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions or the procedure for appeal. However, their presence and representation indicate their stance against the petitioners' immediate relief in the writ jurisdiction.