Remedy Vinimay PVT. LTD. vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that while ordinarily, maintaining an appeal requires a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed solely for non-payment of this pre-deposit. Recognizing the non-availability of the appellate tribunal and the petitioner's submission of willingness to pay, the Court deemed it prudent to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority rather than adjudicating on merits at this stage. The Court directed the petitioner to pay an *additional* 10% of the disputed tax amount, in addition to the initial 10% pre-deposit, within two weeks. Upon confirmation of this payment, the Appellate Authority is to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously. The additional 10% payment will be treated as an additional pre-deposit and will abide by the final outcome of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Remedy Vinimay Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated May 29, 2024, passed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's appeal was rejected due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit. The petitioner expressed willingness to comply with the pre-deposit requirements and requested the High Court to either remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority or hear it on merits, citing the non-availability of the appellate tribunal. The State-respondents argued that the appeal was correctly rejected as the petitioner failed to make the pre-deposit despite receiving a show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an appellate order rejecting an appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit, given the non-availability of the appellate tribunal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that due to the non-availability of the appellate tribunal, the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction. They expressed readiness to comply with the pre-deposit requirements and sought a remand of the matter to the Appellate Authority or a hearing on merits. State's arguments: The State-respondents argued that the petitioner's appeal was rightly dismissed as they failed to make the required pre-deposit, even after receiving a show cause notice. They submitted that no interference by the Court was warranted in the given facts.