M/S. Roadwings International Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr.
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition. The Hon'ble Justice MD. Nizamuddin, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, was not inclined to entertain the writ petition or grant any relief. The Supreme Court in that case had directed the assessee to deposit a specific amount in cash and stated that it would not be appropriate to allow a stay of recovery on the basis of a bank guarantee. The High Court followed this precedent, implicitly holding that the statutory pre-deposit must be made in cash and not by way of a bank guarantee, and therefore, the petitioner's prayer could not be granted. No specific issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
M/s. Roadwings International Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking permission to make the statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the appellate authority by furnishing a bank guarantee. The respondent CGST Authority opposed this, relying on a Supreme Court decision. The petitioner sought to challenge an order or action, though the specific order, authority, tax period, and amount in dispute are not detailed in this judgment. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not elaborated.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to make the statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the appellate authority by furnishing a bank guarantee, turning on the principles of statutory compliance and the discretion of the Court. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to make the pre-deposit by way of a bank guarantee. The specific arguments or legal provisions relied upon by the petitioner are not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contention: The respondent CGST Authority opposed the writ petition. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (2017) 50 S.T.R. 96 (S.C.), which held that it would not be appropriate to allow an assessee to prefer statutory appeals and enjoy the benefit of stay of recovery on the basis of a bank guarantee, directing instead a cash deposit.
Sections Cited
Section 35
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD –3 ORDER SHEET WPO/1593/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. ROADWINGS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 26th September, 2023. Appearance: Mr. Aditya Dutta, Adv. Mr. Akash Dutta, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Union of India Mr. K.K. Maiti, Adv. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv. ….For CGST Authorities The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking relief of allowing it to make statutory pre-deposit for filing the appeal before the appellate authority by way of bank guarantee. Mr. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the respondent CGST Authority in opposing the writ petition for allowing the petitioner to make pre-deposit by way of bank guarantee has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble hereunder :
“11. Be it stated, there is no cavil over the fact that an appeal lies under Section 35 of the Central
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.