Subrata Mondal vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court decided to permit the petitioner to make a lump-sum payment initially from the amount in their bank account to ensure adequate security. The Court directed the respondent no. 6 to retain Rs. 10 lakhs in the petitioner's bank account, which would be held until further notice. The petitioner would be allowed to operate the bank account after setting aside this Rs. 10 lakhs. Upon payment of Rs. 10 lakhs within three weeks and presentation of a certificate from the respondents, the attachment would be released, and the petitioner could utilize the retained Rs. 10 lakhs. The balance tax amount is to be paid in eight equal monthly installments, commencing from the month following the issuance of a certificate by the appellate authority confirming receipt of the initial Rs. 10 lakhs. The appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. The amounts paid by the petitioner will lie to the credit of the appeal and will abide by its result.

Facts

The petitioner, Subrata Mondal, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated February 28, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate, under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay the outstanding tax liability in installments and requested that the appeal filed by the petitioner be heard on merits. The petitioner stated that Rs. 35,79,851.32 was in their Punjab National Bank current account, which was under attachment. The petitioner disclosed a bank statement for August 1, 2025, to October 28, 2025. The respondents' advocate submitted that if the petitioner intended to pay the entire tax liability, it should be in one go. The Court noted that a belated appeal had been filed and pre-deposit appeared to have been made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pay the outstanding tax liability in installments, subject to the outcome of the appeal, and whether the attachment on the petitioner's bank account should be lifted or modified to facilitate this payment and the hearing of the appeal on merits. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the outstanding tax liability in installments and insists that the appeal filed be heard on merits. The petitioner has a substantial amount in their bank account, and if the attachment is lifted, they can make payments in installments, contingent on the appeal's outcome. A bank statement was disclosed to support this. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that if the petitioner intends to pay the entire tax liability, such payment should be made in one lump sum.