M/S. Roy Constructions vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit was not appropriate in this instance. While acknowledging the statutory requirement under Section 107(6) of the said Act for payment of admitted tax and 10% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit, the Court considered the petitioner's submission regarding the prior payment made through Form GST DRC 03. The Court found it prudent to allow the petitioner an opportunity to deposit 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, along with an additional 10% of the total tax in dispute, within twenty-one working days. Upon such payment, the Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously. The order dated May 30, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside.
Facts
M/s. Roy Constructions (the petitioner) challenged an adjudication order dated December 7, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner contended that no amount was due as they had already paid the tax in Form GST DRC 03 on February 6, 2020, and therefore, no pre-deposit was required. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal for non-payment of the pre-deposit. The petitioner sought to have the payment made in Form DRC 03 considered. The State-respondents argued that the appeal was correctly dismissed due to the non-payment of pre-deposit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit, considering the petitioner had made a payment in Form GST DRC 03 for the disputed tax period. The petitioner argued that the payment made in Form GST DRC 03 on February 6, 2020, for the self-same tax period should be considered as fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement, thereby entitling them to have their appeal heard on merits. They relied on the fact that no further amount was due. The State-respondents argued that the petitioner admittedly did not make the pre-deposit as required by law, and therefore, the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority was justified, warranting no interference by the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107, Section 107(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
24th September, 2024 (AK) 268
W.P.A 20726 of 2024
M/s. Roy Constructions Vs. Union of India and others
Ms. Malabika Roy Dey …for the petitioner.
Md. T.M. Siddqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal …for the State.
Challenging an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) dated 7th December, 2023 in respect of the tax period July 2017 to March 2018 an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act.
According to the petitioner, inasmuch as no amount was due and payable by the petitioner and further since the petitioner had made payment of tax in Form GST DRC 03 on 6th February, 2020 in respect of the self-same tax period, the petitioner was entitled to benefit thereof, and as such did not make payment of pre-deposit.
Ms. Dey, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the Appellate
2 Authority by disregarding the aforesaid contention had dismissed
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.