Appellate Authority cannot dismiss appeal without notice when petitioner uses ITC for Section 107(6) pre-deposit requirement

The Bombay HC set aside the Appellate Authority's order dismissing petitioner's appeal for non-compliance with Section 107(6) CGST Act's pre-deposit requirement. The Authority rejected petitioner's use of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the 10% pre-deposit without providing notice or hearing, violating natural justice principles. The HC noted that the Bombay HC had previously held in Oasis Realty that ITC could be utilized for pre-deposits, contrary to the Patna HC's decision in Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. The Appellate Authority improperly ignored its jurisdictional HC's precedent and followed the Patna HC ruling, which had been stayed by the SC. The HC emphasized that the Authority should have given notice before non-suiting the petitioner on pre-deposit non-compliance grounds. The appeal was restored to the Appellate Authority's file for fresh consideration.

---

---

ISSUES:

• Whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be utilised to make the 10% pre-deposit required under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for filing an appeal.
• Whether the Appellate Authority's dismissal of an appeal without issuing notice on alleged non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements violates the principles of natural justice.
• Whether the decision of the Appellate Authority ignoring the jurisdictional High Court's binding decision and following a conflicting decision of another High Court is legally permissible.
• Whether the stay order issued by the Supreme Court on certain paragraphs of the Patna High Court's decision affects the validity of the Appellate Authority's reliance on that decision.
• Whether the provisions of Section 49(4) of the CGST Act and Rule 86(2) of the CGST Rules preclude utilisation of ITC for pre-deposit payments.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

• The Court held that the Appellate Authority's order dismissing the appeal on the ground that ITC cannot be used for the 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act is contrary to the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Oasis Realty, which held that ITC can be utilised for such pre-deposit.
• The Appellate Authority's failure to issue any notice to the appellant before non-suiting on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice, warranting setting aside of the impugned order.
• The Appellate Authority was not justified in ignoring the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court and instead relying on the Patna High Court's conflicting decision in Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., especially when the Supreme Court had stayed the relevant paragraphs of the Patna High Court's order.
• The Supreme Court's ex-parte stay of paragraphs 77 and 78 of the Patna High Court's decision has binding authority and must be respected, notwithstanding the pendency of further proceedings.
• The provisions of Section 49(4) of the CGST Act and Rule 86(2) of the CGST Rules were duly considered by the jurisdictional High Court in Oasis Realty, and do not preclude the use of ITC for pre-deposit payments under Section 107(6).

RATIONALE:

• The Court applied the statutory framework under the CGST Act, particularly Section 107(6) relating to pre-deposit for appeals, Section 49(4) governing utilisation of electronic credit ledger balances, and Rule 86(2) of the CGST Rules.
• The Court relied on the binding precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court in Oasis Realty, which interpreted the CGST provisions to allow utilisation of ITC for pre-deposit, and emphasized the importance of judicial discipline requiring subordinate authorities to follow binding High Court decisions.
• The Court found the Appellate Authority's reliance on the Patna High Court's contrary decision inappropriate, especially since the Supreme Court had stayed the relevant observations in that decision, thereby limiting its precedential effect.
• The Court underscored the fundamental principle of natural justice requiring notice before non-suiting a party on grounds of non-compliance, and held that failure to provide such notice justifies interference with the impugned order.
• The Court declined to reconsider or refer the Oasis Realty decision to a larger bench, noting that the Supreme Court is seized of the issue, thus indicating a doctrinal stability pending apex court determination.

---