M/S National Fertilizers Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. The Principal Commissioner,CGST And Central Excise Commissionerate,Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s National Fertilizers Limited, challenged an order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow (acting as Commissioner Appeals). The appeal was dismissed for non-deposit of the mandatory pre-deposit required under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that their appeal was admitted and heard without any objection regarding the deposit, and that the deposit made through the electronic credit ledger was valid. The respondents conceded that if the Commissioner (Appeals) found the electronic credit ledger deposit invalid, they should have first confronted the petitioner with this issue before dismissing the appeal on merits.
Held
The Court quashed the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have confronted the petitioner with the issue of the validity of the deposit made through the electronic credit ledger before dismissing the appeal on that ground. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh. During the fresh proceedings, both the petitioner and the respondents would be at liberty to argue on the question of whether a deposit made through the electronic credit ledger constitutes a valid deposit in terms of Section 107 of the GST Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) is to pass orders based on the arguments advanced by both parties and any judgments they rely upon. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the remand allows for full adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of non-deposit of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 of the GST Act was justified, particularly when the deposit was made through the electronic credit ledger and no objection was raised at the admission stage. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that their appeal was admitted and heard without any objection regarding the non-deposit of the mandatory amount. They further contended that the deposit made through the electronic credit ledger constituted a valid deposit under Section 107 of the GST Act. Respondent's argument: The respondents fairly conceded that if the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the deposit made through the electronic credit ledger was not a valid deposit as prescribed under Section 107 of the GST Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have confronted the petitioner with this specific issue before passing an order dismissing the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19355 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 298 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S National Fertilizers Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Respondent :- The Principal Commissioner,Cgst And Central Excise Commissionerate,Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veer Bahadur Lal Srivasta, Alok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Dipak Seth Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri R. Krishnan assisted by Sri Veer Bahadur Lal Srivastav and Shri Vinay Singh the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dipak Seth, the counsel for the respondents.
The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 28.10.2024 passed in Appeal preferred by the petitioner being Appeal No.212 of 2024 whereby, the appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of non-deposit of mandatory pre-deposit in terms of the mandate of Section 107 of the GST Act.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that when the appeal was preferred, the same was admitted and at the time of hearing, no objection with regard to non-deposit of the amount, as prescribed under section 107 of the Act was ever raised and no issue was raised with regard to the deposit of the amount by the petitioner through electronic credit ledger was not a valid deposit.
It is fairly stated by the counsel for the respondents that in case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the deposit made by the petitioner through electronic credit ledger would not fall within the deposit as prescribed under section 107 of the GST Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have confronted the petitioner with the said before passing the order on merit dismissing the appeal.
In view of the agreement, in between the parties as noticed above, the order dated 28.10.2024 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh. While doing so, it will be open to the petitioner as well as the respondents to argue whether the deposit through electronic credit ledger would be a valid deposit in terms of the prescription contained in section 107 GST Act or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass orders based upon the arguments that is to be advanced by both the parties and the judgments that may be relied upon by both the parties.
The writ petition stands disposed off in terms of the said order. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 VNP/- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.