Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF Chamunda Bulion vs. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Agp And Ors
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner's prayer for adjustment of the Rs.1 Crore deposit as pre-deposit for the maintainability of the appeal was justified and squarely covered by the decision in Vinod Metal (supra). The Court reasoned that a deposit made "under protest" without an existing demand cannot be retained by the Respondents without authority of law. The distinction made by the Respondents regarding the section under which the order was passed (Section 74 vs. Section 73(5)) was not tenable, as the core issue was whether a deposit made "under protest" without a demand could be treated as a pre-deposit. The Court reiterated the principle from Vinod Metal that voluntary deposits made "under protest" cannot be excluded from consideration as pre-deposit for filing an appeal. Regarding the blocking of input tax credit, the Respondents stated they had not blocked it, and even if it was blocked, the period of one year under Section 83 had expired, leading to its de-freezing by operation of law. The Court directed the Respondents to treat the Rs.1 Crore as pre-deposit and decided the appeal on merits, and also ordered the input tax credit to be defreezed.
Facts
The Petitioner, Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF, carrying on business as Chamunda Bullion, challenged an order dated 19.04.2022 by Respondent No.3, which blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Petitioner deposited Rs.1 Crore under protest on 25th and 26th April 2022. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original dated 29th August 2022 demanded Rs.7,32,73,629/- for the period 2021-22. The Petitioner filed an appeal against this order and sought to adjust the Rs.1 Crore deposit as pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the MGST Act. This request was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner also filed an interim application seeking directions to consider the Rs.1 Crore deposit as sufficient compliance for filing the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether a voluntary deposit made "under protest" without an existing demand can be treated as a pre-deposit for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST/MGST Act? The Petitioner argued that the Rs.1 Crore was deposited "under protest" without any demand at the time, and therefore, the Respondents are not justified in retaining it or demanding a separate pre-deposit. They relied on the decision in Vinod Metal Vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that such deposits should be considered as pre-deposit. The Petitioner also contended that the blocking of credit under Section 83 had expired by operation of law. The Respondents contended that the Rs.1 Crore deposit was voluntary and thus could not be treated as a pre-deposit. They argued that the decision in Vinod Metal was not applicable as the order in the Petitioner's case was under Section 74, unlike the order in Vinod Metal which was under Section 73(5). The Respondents also stated they had not blocked the credit.
Sections Cited
Section 107(6), Section 83, Section 83(2), Section 74, Section 73(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tauseef
10-WP.14095.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14095 OF 2022 Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.464 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14095 OF 2022 Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF ...Applicant/Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ******** Mr. Brijesh Pathak for the Petitioner. Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent (State). ******** CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.
DATE : 4th DECEMBER, 2023. P.C.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for various relief, however at the time of the hearing the Petitioner has pressed prayer clause (b) which reads thus:- “(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order thereby quashing the impugned Order dated 19.04.2022, Exhibit A, issued by the Respondent No.3 along with consequential reliefs;” 1 of 8 TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Digitally si
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.