M/S Trishul Itt Udyog (A Sole Proprietor Ship Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Trishul ITT Udyog, filed a writ application before the Patna High Court challenging an ex-parte order dated 18.07.2024, passed by the Appellate Authority (Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur). The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner had not deposited 10% of the disputed amount at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner's authorized signatory stated that due to wrong legal advice, only 1% of the disputed amount was deposited. The petitioner expressed readiness to deposit the remaining 9% of the disputed amount within three weeks.
Held
The Court allowed the writ application. It held that the Appellate Authority's order dismissing the appeal for non-deposit of the full 10% of the disputed amount was set aside. The Court reasoned that considering the petitioner's submission of having deposited 1% and their readiness to deposit the remaining 9%, and in light of the nature of the dispute, it was appropriate to grant relief. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal on its own merits, provided the petitioner deposits the remaining 9% of the disputed amount within three weeks from the date of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of non-deposit of 10% of the disputed amount, when the petitioner deposited 1% and was ready to deposit the balance 9%? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the dismissal was based on wrong legal advice and that they were prepared to deposit the remaining 9% of the disputed amount within a stipulated period. They relied on the principle of substantial justice and the nature of the dispute. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India, Chief Commissioner CGST & CX, State of Bihar, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA) 2 17-07-2026
The present writ application has been filed for quashing the ex-parte order, dated 18.07.2024, passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No. AD1006204003600Y, whereby the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, has dismissed the memo of appeal of the petitioner on the ground that he has not deposited 10% of the disputed amount at the time of filing of the appeal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10156 of 2026(2) dt.17-07-2026 2/2
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under wrong legal advice, at the time of filing the appeal, only 1% of the disputed amount was deposited instead of 10%. The petitioner is now ready to deposit the remaining 9% of the disputed amount within a period of three weeks.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the nature of the dispute, and the fact that the petitioner is ready to deposit the remaining 9% of the disputed amount, the present writ application is allowed. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said authority to dispose of the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law, provided the remaining 9% of the disputed amount is positively deposited by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.
ashwani/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.