Honda Motorcycle And Scooter INDIA PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appeal was not entertained by the respondents on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that it had deposited the entire amount demanded, although it was disputed. The petitioner argued that once the entire disputed amount was deposited, the requirement of depositing 10% further under Section 107(6)(b) was met. The petitioner further argued that Section 107(6)(a) or (b) would not be attracted in cases where the assessee deposits the entire disputed amount.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount demanded, even though it was disputed. The Court found 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 disputed amount. The Court reasoned that once the petitioner deposited the entire amount in dispute, the requirement of pre-deposit was met. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the respondents for non-payment of pre-deposit was set aside. The Court directed the respondents to decide the appeal expeditiously on merits. The ratio decidendi is that depositing the entire disputed amount fulfills the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, making further insistence on Section 107(6)(b) unnecessary.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, was maintainable despite the respondents rejecting it on the grounds of non-payment of pre-deposit as per Section 107(6) of the CGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it had deposited the entire amount demanded, even though it was disputed. Therefore, the condition of pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(a) was met. Furthermore, since the entire disputed amount was deposited, the additional requirement of depositing 10% under Section 107(6)(b) was also satisfied, and thus, the said sub-sections were not attracted. The petitioner contended that once the entire disputed amount is deposited, the appeal should be heard on merits without further insistence on pre-deposit. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents/revenue regarding the interpretation of Section 107(6) or the maintainability of the appeal on the grounds of pre-deposit.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 107(6), Section 107(6)(a), Section 107(6)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
260 IN TH
HONDA MO
UNION OF I CORAM: H
H
Present: M
M f
* SANJEEV PR
T petitioner had and Services entertained b pre-deposit en
L deposited the cannot be said of Section 10 dispute, depo 10% further a submitted tha the purpose o
T 107(6)(a) nor HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR C D OTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER I
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 t d preferred an Appeal under Se Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the C by the respondents on the nvisaged under Section 107 of th Learned counsel for the petitio e entire amount demanded, thou d that he had to deposit the amou 07(6)(a) of the CGST Act. Onc sited the entire amount, questio amount in terms of Section 107(6 at once the petitioner deposited th f pre-deposit stands meted-out. This Court is of the view that n r of Section 107(6)(b) of the C AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-21043-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.09.2024 INDIA PVT. LTD.
..…...Petitioner(s) V/s.
….....Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH for the petitioner. nding Counsel, this Writ Petition is that the ction 107 of the Central Goods CGST Act”) which has not been ground of non-payment of he CGST Act. oner submits that the petitioner ugh in dispute, and therefore, it unt and additional 10% in terms ce the petitioner has, by way of on does not arise of payment of 6)(b) of the CGST Act. It is also he amount in entirety in dispute, neither the provisions of Section GST Act would be attracted in ) e s n f r t s f f o , n n Suresh Kumar 2024.09.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-21043-2024
cases where challenging/d be sufficient pre-deposit. T entire amoun amount either
A the prayer of insisting on respondents to 5. A 6. A of.
September 23 Ess Kay
W W
4 (O&M) e the Assessee deposits disputing the same, however, the for the purpose of hearing th The petitioner in the present cas nt, though in dispute, it needs n r in terms of Section 107(6)(a) or Accordingly, orders dated 31.05 the petitioner for allowing its A pre-deposit, is set aside wit o decide the Appeal expeditiousl Accordingly, the Writ Petition is All pending applications filed in [SANJEEV [SANJ 3, 2024 Whether speaking / reasoned
: Whether Reportable
: the entire amount while same amount shall be treated to he Appeal without insisting on se having already deposited the not be further asked to deposit r 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act. .2024 (Annexure P-1), rejecting Appeal to be heard on merits and th a further direction to the ly on merits. allowed in the aforesaid terms. n this case shall stand disposed V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE
JAY VASHISTH] JUDGE
Yes / No
Yes / No e o n e t g d e 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.