Pearl City Marine Products PVT LTD vs. Additional Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, Pearl City Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No.11/ADC/GST/2024-25 dated May 17, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli. This order confirmed a demand proposed in a preceding show cause notice. The petitioner argued that for the item 'Fish Meal', a similar issue was decided by this Court in other writ petitions, directing petitioners to file statutory appeals without pre-deposit. For other disputed items, the petitioner was willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as per Section 107 of the GST enactments.
Held
The Court found sufficient merit in the petitioner's submissions, particularly in light of the previous order in W.P.(MD)Nos.14068, 14069, 14220 and 14253 of 2023 in the case of Rehoboth Fish Meal and Oil Plant. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days. For items other than 'Fish Meal', the petitioner was directed to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as per Section 107 of the GST enactments within the same period. The Appellate Authority was instructed to dispose of the appeal, subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the classification of 'Fish Meal'. The ratio decidendi is that where a High Court has passed a specific order on a similar issue concerning pre-deposit for a particular item, subsequent petitions on the same issue should follow that precedent, while adhering to statutory pre-deposit requirements for other disputed items.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority without pre-deposit concerning the demand related to 'Fish Meal', in light of previous High Court orders on similar matters? 2. Whether the petitioner should pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax for items other than 'Fish Meal' before filing a statutory appeal, as contemplated under Section 107 of the GST enactments? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that for 'Fish Meal', the Court had previously allowed writ petitions in similar circumstances, directing the filing of statutory appeals without pre-deposit, citing the case of Rehoboth Fish Meal and Oil Plant vs. Additional Commissioner, Tirunelveli. For other items, the petitioner agreed to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as per Section 107. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after dispensing with the counter from the respondent as
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 Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.