2022 (4) TMI 1243 - HC - GST

Supplier Gets Second Chance: CGST Appeal Dismissed for Missing 10% Pre-Deposit Restored Upon Payment Within Two Weeks

M/s. Hinron Steel Private Limited Versus Union Of India

The HC allowed the writ application challenging dismissal of a CGST appeal. The petitioner, a supplier of iron and steel products, failed to make the ... Seeking restoration of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- The writ applicant submit that his client is ready and willing to deposit an amount of ₹ 11,08,961/- in accordance with Section 107(6) of the Act within a period of two weeks from today. His request is that his client may be permitted to deposit this amount so that his appeal can be restored and heard on merits - there should not be any difficulty in acceding to the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant. This writ application is disposed off with a direction that the writ applicant shall deposit the amount of ₹ 11,08,961/- within a period of two weeks with the Office of the Commissioner (Appeals) in accordance with Section 107(6) of the Act. If this amount is deposited within the stipulated time then the appeal shall be restored to its original file and the Commissioner (Appeals) shall proceed to hear the appeal on its own merits. Application disposed off. Issues:- Writ application under Article 226 seeking to quash orders of Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST- Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement- Request for stay on implementation of orders and restoration of appeal- Request for ex-parte ad interim relief- Request for deposit of pre-deposit amount to restore appealAnalysis:The writ applicant, engaged in the supply of goods like iron and steel and registered under the CGST Act, challenged an order determining a liability of Rs. 1,10,89,614 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Gandhidham. Dissatisfied, the applicant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority required a pre-deposit of 10% of the total liability (Rs. 11,08,961), which the applicant failed to make due to a communication gap. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on 18.08.2021 for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.The impugned order highlighted the necessity of the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Act, emphasizing that the appeal could not be sustained without it. Subsequently, the applicant faced recovery notices post-appeal dismissal, leading to the filing of the present writ application seeking relief. During the hearing, the applicant expressed readiness to deposit the required amount within two weeks to comply with Section 107(6) and requested restoration of the appeal for a merit-based hearing.The High Court, acknowledging the applicant's willingness to fulfill the pre-deposit requirement, directed the deposit of Rs. 11,08,961 within two weeks to restore the appeal for further proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court clarified that the disposal of the writ application did not entail a judgment on the case's merits, focusing solely on the restoration of the appeal upon compliance with the pre-deposit obligation.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ application with the specified directive for deposit and appeal restoration, refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's substantive aspects. The judgment ensured procedural adherence to statutory requirements while allowing the appeal to proceed for a comprehensive review on its merits.