Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Jurisdicition Bhopal

Held

The Court noted that both parties fairly submitted that the impugned order dated June 17, 2022, was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the recovery of more than 10% of the disputed tax amount before the expiry of the statutory appeal period was unfair. The respondent had no objection to the petitioner filing an appeal. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Competent Appellate Authority along with an appropriate application. The Court directed that the Appellate Authority shall consider the application in accordance with law, pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity to the parties, and decide the matter without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the premature recovery.

Facts

The petitioner, Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated June 17, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhopal. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), within 90 days, with a provision for condonation of delay. The petitioner argued that the total tax disputed was Rs. 1,88,16,111/-, and the respondent had already recovered Rs. 49,28,604/- on June 19, 2022, which exceeded the 10% pre-deposit requirement stipulated in Section 107(6) and (7) for staying the balance amount. The petitioner submitted that the respondent should have waited for the statutory appeal period to expire.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recovery of an amount exceeding 10% of the disputed tax, as per Section 107(6) and (7) of the GST Act, by the revenue authority before the expiry of the statutory appeal period, constitutes a procedural irregularity that warrants intervention by the High Court. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act within 90 days, with a condonable delay. They contended that Section 107(6) and (7) mandate that upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax, the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed. Since the respondent had already recovered more than 10% of the total disputed tax of Rs. 1,88,16,111/-, the recovery was premature and unfair, and the respondent should have allowed the petitioner to file its statutory appeal. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the Government Advocate, stated that they had no objection if the petitioner preferred an appeal along with an appropriate application to the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority could be directed to decide the same in accordance with the law.