TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed as not maintainable for failure to make mandatory Section 107 GST pre-deposit; matter remanded for fresh hearing</h1> <h3>M/s National Fertilizers Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Versus The Principal Commissioner, Cgst And Central Excise Commissionerate, Lko. And 2 Others</h3> Appeal held not maintainable for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 GST; HC observed that if the Commissioner (Appeals) ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of non-deposit of mandatory pre-deposit in terms of the mandate of Section 107 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- It is fairly stated by the counsel for the respondents that in case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the deposit made by the petitioner through electronic credit ledger would not fall within the deposit as prescribed under section 107 of the GST Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have confronted the petitioner with the said before passing the order on merit dismissing the appeal. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh. While doing so, it will be open to the petitioner as well as the respondents to argue whether the deposit through electronic credit ledger would be a valid deposit in terms of the prescription contained in section 107 GST Act or not. Petition disposed off by way of remand. In the case before the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., the petitioner challenged an order dated 28.10.2024, which dismissed their appeal (Appeal No. 212 of 2024) due to non-deposit of the mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the appeal was initially admitted without objection to the non-deposit and that the deposit made through the electronic credit ledger should be considered valid. The respondent's counsel acknowledged that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have addressed the issue of the deposit method before dismissing the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the court quashed the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration. The Commissioner is directed to determine the validity of the electronic credit ledger deposit under Section 107 of the GST Act, allowing both parties to present arguments and relevant judgments. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
