Airtec Electrovision PVT. LTD. Thr. Its Autho. Repre. Manish Nathani vs. Department Of Goods And Service Tax Trh. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's arguments regarding the merits of the matter, specifically that the impugned order was passed without considering their sales registers, could not form the basis for exempting them from the mandatory condition of pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/MGST Acts, 2017. The Court referred to its own decision in Lalit Kulthia & Anr vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai III & Ors, and the Supreme Court's decisions in Kotak Mahindra Bank pvt Ltd vs. Ambuj A Kasliwal and Others, and Manjit Singh vs. Union of India. The Court reiterated that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised to undermine statutory regimes provided by fiscal enactments. Therefore, the Court concluded that no direction could be issued to the Appellate Authority to waive the statutory requirement of pre-deposit based on the petitioner's contentions. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought exemption from the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount, as stipulated under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/MGST Acts, 2017. This pre-deposit was required to file an appeal against an order dated 24 June 2025, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering the sales registers they had filed, proceeding on the erroneous premise that they were never submitted. The petitioner contended that in such circumstances, they should be exempted from the pre-deposit requirement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be exempted from the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/MGST Acts, 2017, when the impugned order was allegedly passed without considering filed sales registers. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that due to the alleged failure of the respondent to consider their filed sales registers, and proceeding on the incorrect assumption that they were never filed, the requirement of pre-deposit should be waived. They argued that this procedural lapse on the part of the authority should not penalize them with a mandatory deposit. Respondent's arguments: The respondent did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies reliance on statutory provisions and established precedents regarding the exercise of writ jurisdiction in fiscal matters.