M/S. Baskar Cements And Products vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the assessment orders passed by the first respondent dated 30.12.2024, for the year 2020-2021 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 12.03.2025. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent on 30.12.2024 for the year 2020-2021, has filed an appeal before the second respondent within the prescribed time limit. However, 10% of the pre-deposit amount was not paid to the Department at the time of filing the appeal due to inadvertence. As a result, the second respondent passed the rejection order on 12.03.2025, stating that the pre-deposit amount was not paid by the petitioner as ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis per Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pending the appeal, the petitioner has now paid 10% of the pre-deposit amount to the Department.
Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the rejection order passed by the second respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act, specifically Section 107(6)(b), which mandates the payment of the pre-deposit amount as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeal. The petitioner has failed to comply with this statutory requirement by not paying the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeals. The failure to make the pre-deposit within the prescribed time limit is a clear violation of the statutory provisions and thus, the rejection of the appeal is justified. Furthermore, the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to make the pre- deposit and cannot now seek to bypass this requirement.
Heard both sides. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
After considering the submissions of both parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's failure to deposit the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeal was due to inadvertence and the petitioner has also paid 10% of the pre-deposit amount to the Department. In the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to deposit the required pre-deposit amount, if not paid, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such payment, the second respondent is directed to restore the appeal on file and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No (1/2) sm ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To:-
The Assistant Commissioner, Karur-2 Assessment Circle, C.T. Buildings, North Pradhakshnam Road, Karur - 639001. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal, (Erode and Salem) Erode. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
sm (1/2) 30.04.2025 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.