Hameed Marine Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, Hameed Marine Private Limited, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order-in-Original No.10/ADC/GST/2024-25 dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli. The impugned order confirmed a demand proposed in a preceding show cause notice. The petitioner argued that for the item 'Fish Meal', this Court had previously allowed similar 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 prior order passed 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/Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore at Madurai, within 30 days. The petitioner was also directed to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax for items other than 'Fish Meal' within the same period. The Appellate Authority was implicitly directed to await orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning the classification of 'Fish Meal'. The ratio decidendi is that when a High Court has passed a specific order in similar circumstances, subsequent petitions with similar facts should be guided by that precedent, especially concerning pre-deposit requirements, while acknowledging pending higher judicial review.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority without pre-deposit for the demand related to 'Fish Meal', in light of previous High Court orders in similar cases? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of principles of natural justice and judicial precedent). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that for 'Fish Meal', this Court had already allowed similar writ petitions in the case of Rehoboth Fish Meal and Oil Plant vs. Additional Commissioner, Tirunelveli, directing petitioners to file statutory appeals without pre-deposit. For other items, the petitioner agreed to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as per Section 107 of the GST enactments. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent Revenue.
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 no adverse orders are proposed to be
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.