Wellknown Polyesters Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Wellknown Polyesters Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11 June 2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent (Appellate Authority). The Appellate Authority declined to entertain the Petitioner's appeal on the grounds that the pre-deposit required for appeal could not be made through the Electronic Credit Ledger, citing Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner argued that this decision was contrary to established High Court precedents. The impugned order relied on a Patna High Court decision, which was in contrast to this Court's own view in Oasis Realty.
Held
The Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in declining to entertain the Petitioner's appeal solely on the basis that the pre-deposit was made through the Electronic Credit Ledger. The Court relied on its own previous decisions in Oasis Realty Vs Union of India & Ors and Navnit Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The reasoning adopted was that the Appellate Authority should not have ignored the established view of this Court and instead followed a conflicting view from another High Court. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the Petitioner's appeal on its merits. All contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter were expressly left open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was correct in declining to entertain the Petitioner's appeal on the ground that pre-deposit under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, cannot be made through the Electronic Credit Ledger? The Petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority erred by not following the Bombay High Court's view in Oasis Realty Vs Union of India & Ors and Navnit Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The Petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority's reliance on the Patna High Court's decision in Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd Vs State of Bihar & Ors was incorrect, as it contradicted the binding precedent of this Court. The Revenue did not present any arguments against the Petitioner's submissions.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
4-WP-12095-2024.DOCX Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12095 OF 2024 Wellknown Polyesters Ltd …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors …Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate, with Mr Jas Sanghavi, i/b, PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr Jitendra B Mishra, with Ms Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 05 August 2025 ORAL ORDER:- (Per M S Sonak, J)
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 11 June 2024 made by the 2nd Respondent declining to entertain the Petitioner’s Appeal on the ground that pre-deposit cannot be made through Electronic Credit Ledger under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, Act 2017. AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.08.06 12:30:00 +0530
4-WP-12095-2024.DOCX 4. & Ors1. However, the view taken by the Patna High Court is diametrically contrasted with this Court’s view in the case of Oasis Realty Vs Union of India & Ors2. The view taken by this (Appeals-III), Mumbai & Anr3, we set aside the Appellate Authority’s order declining to accept pre-deposit when made through the Electronic Credit Ledger. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in Oasis Realty (supra) and Navnit Motors (supra), we set aside the impugned order and direct the Appellate Authority to dispose of the Petitioner’s Appeal on merits.
All contentions of all parties on the merits of the matter are explicitly left open.
The Rule is made absolute in above terms.
There shall be no order for costs. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) 1 2024 132 GSTR 369 (Patna HC) 2 2023 120 GSTR 755 BOM 3 2025 (7) TMI 1130 BOM
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.