2024 (9) TMI 681 - HC - GST

GST Demand Challenge Upheld: Pre-Deposit Required, Statutory Appeal Permitted with 10% Payment Within 30 Days

HC allowed the writ petition challenging GST demands, directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 30 days. The court mandated a 10% ... Confirmation of demand proposed in the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order - requirement of pre-deposit for filing appeal - HELD THAT:- There are sufficient merits in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of REHOBOTH FISH MEAL AND OIL PLANT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERSHIP J. SUDEEP FERNANDO; NPM ASSOCIATES; MARKSMEN AQUATIC PRODUCTS LLP; FINLEY MARINE PRODUCTS VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, TIRUNELVELI [2024 (7) TMI 1521 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'This Court is of the view that to balance the interest of the petitioners and the Revenue, there shall be a stay of all recovery proceedings pending further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the impugned orders are the appealable orders in terms of Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, the petitioners are directed to file statutory appeal before the respective Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.' The Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to file statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority/the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore at Madurai, within a period of 30 days from today, for which, the said Appellate Authority is suo motu impleaded as second respondent - the petitioner shall pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax of the other items except for ‘Fish Meal’ as per Section 107 of the respective GST enactments in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Rehoboth Fish Meal and Oil Plant (cited supra) within a period of 30 days from today. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Challenge against Order-in-Original regarding GST demands.2. Pre-deposit requirement for filing statutory appeal.3. Application of Section 107 of GST enactments.4. Reference to previous judgments regarding similar cases.5. Disposal of Writ Petition with specific directions for appeal filing and pre-deposit.Analysis:1. The Writ Petition challenges the Order-in-Original concerning GST demands imposed on the petitioner. The impugned order confirmed various amounts payable for different periods under the IGST Act, CGST Act, and Tamil Nadu GST Act. It included demands, interest, and penalties for the supply of 'Fish Meal,' fish oil, and other items, with specific amounts and sections cited for each category.2. The petitioner, through their counsel, referred to previous judgments where similar cases involving 'Fish Meal' were allowed to file statutory appeals without pre-deposit. The counsel indicated the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount for items other than 'Fish Meal,' as required under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments.3. The Court acknowledged the merits in the petitioner's submissions, citing the precedent set by previous orders in related cases involving 'Fish Meal.' Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days, with the Appellate Authority being added as the second respondent. The petitioner was instructed to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax for non-'Fish Meal' items within the same timeframe.4. The judgment emphasized the need for compliance with the pre-deposit requirement and the statutory appeal process, aligning with the decisions in previous cases. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) was tasked with disposing of the appeal, subject to the Supreme Court's decision on the classification of 'Fish Meal.'5. In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with specific directions for filing the statutory appeal, pre-depositing the disputed tax amount, and awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on the 'Fish Meal' classification. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.