Court dismisses challenge to GST intimation & appealability of final order under CGST Act, stresses compliance with pre-deposit.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the legality of an intimation by the Assistant Commissioner under the GST Act and the appealability of a final order under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the pre-deposit requirements for filing an appeal under Section 107, stating that the legislative mandate must be followed. The dismissal of the petition did not prejudice the petitioner's right to file an appeal in the future under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Legality of intimation by Assistant Commissioner under GST Act.
2. Appealability of the final order under Section 107 of CGST Act.
3. Compliance with pre-deposit requirements for filing an appeal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, raised a grievance against being simultaneously subjected to summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act and an intimation by the Assistant Commissioner for determining the payable amount. The petitioner argued that the intimation was illegal when compared to a specific letter issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The court noted the contentions and the circumstances surrounding the intimation.

2. The court observed that the petitioner had received a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Madhya Pradesh GST Act, leading to a final order on a specific date. It was acknowledged that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court highlighted the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of Section 107, emphasizing the requirement for payment of a part of the amount in dispute as a pre-deposit for filing an appeal.

3. Given the legislative mandate regarding pre-deposit requirements for appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the legislative command should not be disregarded by allowing the petition to proceed without fulfilling the pre-deposit conditions. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the dismissal would not prejudice the petitioner's ability to invoke Section 107 for filing an appeal in the future.

---