Amirul Islam vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that in the event the petitioner deposits the balance amount of pre-deposit, aggregating 10% of the tax in dispute, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of the order, the appellate authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was willing to pay the short-fall and noted the peculiar facts, including the yet-to-be-constituted Appellate Tribunal. The ratio decidendi is that where there is a bona fide willingness to rectify a short-fall in pre-deposit and the appeal is pending, the appellate authority should grant an opportunity to make the payment, especially in the absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal. The operative direction is to allow the petitioner to deposit the balance pre-deposit within four weeks, after which the appellate authority must hear and decide the appeal on merits expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Amirul Islam, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 3, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the appeal was rejected despite payment of the pre-deposit amount through Form GST DRC 03 on March 13, 2024. The revenue argued that the pre-deposit required was 10% of the entire tax in dispute, which amounted to Rs. 4,13,925/-. The petitioner had made a short-fall in this payment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner then expressed willingness to pay the balance pre-deposit amount and sought another opportunity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal by ignoring the pre-deposit payment made through Form GST DRC 03, thereby violating the provisions of Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the pre-deposit amount, as recorded in Form GST DRC 03 dated March 13, 2024, was paid, and the appellate authority erroneously rejected the appeal by disregarding this payment. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the entire tax in dispute, aggregating Rs. 4,13,925/-, as pre-deposit to maintain the appeal. Since there was a short-fall in this payment, the appeal was correctly dismissed. The revenue also noted that the petitioner questioned the entire order, necessitating the full pre-deposit.