M. Alagesan vs. The Additional Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court interfered with the impugned orders based on the appellant's submission that they were willing to deposit 7.5% of the amount determined by the authority for preferring appeals. The Court disposed of the Writ Appeals by directing the appellant to prefer appeals to the appellate authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the judgment, if the statutory period for filing such appeals had already expired. Since nothing further survived in the writ petition, it was also disposed of accordingly. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original orders or the specific GST provisions related to the deposit requirement, relying instead on the appellant's undertaking. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M. Alagesan, filed writ petitions and appeals challenging orders passed by CGST and Central Excise authorities. Specifically, W.P(MD)No.11276 of 2023 challenged an order-in-original dated 31.03.2023. W.A(MD)No.950 of 2023 was an appeal against a conditional interim order dated 05.06.2023 in the aforementioned writ petition. W.A(MD)No.455 of 2022 was an appeal against an order dated 23.02.2022 in W.P(MD)No.7137 of 2021, which directed the petitioner to reply to a show cause notice and afforded an opportunity of being heard. A common thread was the requirement for the appellant to deposit 7.5% of the determined amount to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to preferential treatment or exemption from depositing 7.5% of the disputed amount as a pre-condition for filing an appeal before the appellate authority, as per the provisions of the GST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, indicated a willingness to deposit 7.5% of the amount determined by the authority for preferring appeals against the original orders. No specific legal arguments or reliance on provisions were detailed in the judgment regarding this aspect. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents regarding the petitioner's entitlement to preferential treatment or exemption from the deposit requirement. The revenue's role appears to be in enforcing the statutory pre-condition for appeal.