Jtekt INDIA LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, JTEKT INDIA LTD. and JTEKT BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD., filed appeals under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) challenging orders passed by the respondents. These appeals were entertained by the respondents but subsequently rejected on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit. The petitioners contend that they had deposited the entire amount demanded, which was in dispute, and an additional 10% in terms of Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act. They argue that since the entire disputed amount was paid, the purpose of pre-deposit was met, and further deposit was not required.
Held
The Court held that neither Section 107(6)(a) nor Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act would be attracted in cases where the assessee deposits the entire amount while challenging it. The Court reasoned that if the entire amount in dispute has been deposited by the petitioner, that amount should be treated as sufficient for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Consequently, the petitioners, having already deposited the entire disputed amount, should not be further asked to deposit any amount either under Section 107(6)(a) or Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act. The Court set aside the orders dated 31.05.2024 rejecting the appeals and directed the respondents to decide the appeals expeditiously on merits. The ratio decidendi is that full deposit of the disputed amount satisfies the pre-deposit requirement for appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeals filed by the petitioners under Section 107 of the CGST Act were maintainable despite the respondents rejecting them on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit, considering the petitioners claim to have deposited the entire disputed amount and an additional 10%? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they had deposited the entire amount demanded, which was in dispute. They further submitted that they had also deposited an additional 10% in terms of Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, the purpose of pre-deposit was fulfilled, and the rejection of their appeals on this ground was erroneous. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or respondents regarding the maintainability of the appeals or the interpretation of Section 107(6) of the CGST Act. The rejection appears to be based on the authority's interpretation of the pre-deposit requirements.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 107(6)(a), Section 107(6)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
265 (2 cases) IN TH
JTEKT INDI
UNION OF I
JTEKT BEAR
UNION OF I CORAM: H
H
Present: M
M f
* SANJEEV PR
T the petitioner Goods and Se been entertai pre-deposit as 2. L petitioner(s) d therefore, it c 10% in terms have, by way of payment o CGST Act. I amount entire HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR C D IA LTD.
INDIA AND OTHERS C RING INDIA PVT. LTD.
INDIA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate f Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Senior Stan for the respondents/revenue. *** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The short point involved in these r(s) had preferred an Appeal un ervices Tax Act, 2017 (for short ined by the respondents on th s envisaged under Section 107 of Learned counsel for the pe deposited the entire amount dem annot be said that they had to de s of Section 107(6)(a) of the CG of dispute, deposited the entire of 10% further amount in term It is also submitted that once ety in dispute, the purpose of pre AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-24243-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.09.2024
..…...Petitioner(s) V/s.
….....Respondents CWP-24226-2024 (O&M)
..…...Petitioner(s) V/s.
….....Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH for the petitioner(s). nding Counsel, e connected Writ Petitions is that nder Section 107 of the Central “the CGST Act”) which has not he ground of non-payment of f the CGST Act. etitioner(s) submits that the manded, though in dispute, and eposit the amount and additional GST Act. Once the petitioner(s) amount, question does not arise ms of Section 107(6)(b) of the the petitioner(s) deposited the -deposit stands meted-out. t l t f e d l ) e e e Suresh Kumar 2024.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-24243-2024 CWP-24226-2024
T 107(6)(a) nor cases where challenging/d to be sufficie pre-deposit. T the entire am deposit the am CGST Act.
A the prayer of merits and in direction to th
A terms.
A of.
September 23 Ess Kay
Whe Whe
4 (O&M) and 4 (O&M) This Court is of the view that n r of Section 107(6)(b) of the C e the Assessee deposits disputing the same. However, th ent for the purpose of hearing t The petitioner(s) in the present mount, though in dispute, they mount either in terms of Section Accordingly, orders dated 31.05 f the petitioner(s) for allowing nsisting on pre-deposit are accor he respondents to decide the App Accordingly, the Writ Petitions All pending applications filed in [SANJEEV [SANJ 3, 2024 ther speaking / reasoned
: ther Reportable
: neither the provisions of Section GST Act would be attracted in the entire amount while he same amount shall be treated
the Appeal without insisting on cases having already deposited need not be further asked to ns 107(6)(a) or 107(6)(b) of the 5.2024 (Annexure P-1) rejecting their Appeal(s) to be heard on rdingly set aside with a further peals expeditiously on merits. s are allowed in the aforesaid n this case shall stand disposed V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE
JAY VASHISTH] JUDGE
Yes / No Yes / No n n e d n d o e g n r d d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.