Tarak Nath Jaiswal vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Tarak Nath Jaiswal, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 04.11.2025. The petitioner informed the Court that they intended to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. This appeal would be filed upon depositing 10% of the total assessed amount, which was stated to be Rs. 3,30,98,926/-. The tax periods involved spanned from Financial Years 2018-2019 to 2022-2023, and 2024-2025. The GST authorities, represented by learned Senior Counsel, did not object to this course of action but emphasized the need for expeditious disposal due to the substantial amount involved, which could prejudice revenue interests.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner was directed to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 04.11.2025 for the period in question within two weeks. This was to be done upon payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount, which is Rs. 3,30,98,926/-, as pre-deposit. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on or before 30th September, 2026, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. The petitioner was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments, and the Appellate Authority was empowered to proceed ex parte if adjournments were sought. No coercive actions were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal, provided the pre-deposit condition was met. The Court explicitly stated that it was disposing of the petition without going into the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner can prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority upon depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount of Rs. 3,30,98,926/-, for the specified financial years, and if so, what directions should be issued for the disposal of the appeal? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through their counsel, submitted their decision to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, contingent upon depositing 10% of the total assessed amount. They sought directions for the expeditious disposal of this appeal. Revenue's Argument: The State-respondents, represented by learned Senior Counsel, did not raise any objection to the petitioner's proposal to file an appeal upon making the pre-deposit. They submitted that the appeal may be decided expeditiously, highlighting the substantial amount involved and the potential prejudice to revenue interests.