Petitioner ordered to deposit 10% of claimed amount by November 15, 2025 per Circular dated 11 July 2024
HC directed petitioner to deposit 10% of the demanded amount by 15 Nov 2025 in terms of the Circular dated 11 July 2024; upon such deposit the impugned order of the Appellate Authority shall remain stayed. As the GST Appellate Tribunal is constituted but not yet functioning, petitioner may file appeal once the Tribunal becomes functional and the deposit already made will be treated as the pre-deposit for that appeal. Petition disposed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether, where an appellate order confirms a demand and the statutory appellate forum (GST Appellate Tribunal) exists but is not functioning, recovery proceedings can be stayed by permitting a pre-deposit mechanism prescribed administratively.
2. Whether the executive circular dated 11 July 2024 (the Circular) that prescribes a procedure for making a pre-deposit in the electronic liability register and filing an undertaking to secure a stay of recovery is permissible and applicable in cases where the Appellate Tribunal is not yet functioning.
3. The quantum and timing of deposit required to obtain a stay of recovery under the Circular when an appeal before the Tribunal cannot presently be filed, and whether such deposit can be treated as the statutory pre-deposit when the Tribunal becomes functional.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Stay of recovery where the Appellate Tribunal is not functioning: legal framework
Legal framework: Section 112 of the CGST Act provides a statutory right of appeal to the Tribunal from orders of the first appellate authority and sub-sections (8)-(9) require a pre-deposit to institute the appeal and provide that on payment of the prescribed pre-deposit the balance recovery is stayed pending disposal of the appeal. Section 78 contemplates recovery where amounts are not paid within the prescribed period.
Precedent Treatment: No contrary judicial precedent is applied or overruled in the judgment; the Court works from the statutory provisions and administrative guidance in the Circular.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognizes the statutory right of appeal but identifies a practical lacuna caused by the non-operation of the Appellate Tribunal, which prevents taxpayers from making the statutory pre-deposit under section 112(8) and thereby obtaining the statutory stay under section 112(9). The Circular is treated as a pragmatic measure to bridge this lacuna and to give effect to the statutory object of permitting appeals with prescribed pre-deposits and consequent stays. The Court reasons that in such circumstances it is appropriate to allow compliance with the administrative procedure set out in the Circular so as to preserve taxpayer rights against recovery until the appellate forum becomes operational.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the Tribunal is not functioning, permitting compliance with the Circular's pre-deposit procedure secures the statutory stay against recovery; Obiter - none specified beyond the practical endorsement of the Circular.
Conclusions: The Court directs that a stay of recovery may be granted on compliance with the Circular's requirements, thereby safeguarding the statutory appeal remedy pending constitution of the Tribunal.
Issue 2 - Validity and applicability of the Circular's procedure for pre-deposit and undertaking
Legal framework: The Circular explains a procedural method for taxpayers to pay an amount equal to the statutory pre-deposit into the Electronic Liability Register (ELL) and to file an undertaking to file the appeal when the Tribunal becomes functional; it situates this measure as necessary because taxpayers cannot presently perform the statutory act of filing an appeal before the Tribunal.
Precedent Treatment: The Court does not displace or overrule judicial precedent; it treats the Circular as an administrative clarification designed to implement the objectives of section 112 when practical barriers exist.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepts that the Circular's mechanism (payment via Services?Ledgers?Payment towards demand; mapping in ELL Part-II; filing an undertaking with the jurisdictional proper officer) reasonably effectuates the statutory requirement of payment of the pre-deposit and operates to stay recovery under section 112(9). The Circular is seen as a facilitative device that ensures taxpayers are not deprived of the statutory protection against recovery when unable to file the appeal due to non-operation of the Tribunal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court finds the Circular's procedure permissible and applicable to secure the stay of recovery where the Tribunal is non-operational; Obiter - the Court's endorsement of administrative steps is pragmatic rather than an expansive ruling on administrative law limits.
Conclusions: The Court applies the Circular as valid and applicable; taxpayers may make the pre-deposit through the ELL mechanism and provide the stipulated undertaking to obtain the stay of recovery.
Issue 3 - Quantum, timeline for deposit, and conversion of deposit into statutory pre-deposit when Tribunal becomes functional
Legal framework: Section 112 prescribes a "prescribed" pre-deposit (quantum depending on statutory scheme and orders) and timelines for filing appeals; the Circular prescribes a procedure for making an amount "equal to the amount of pre-deposit" through the ELL and filing an undertaking. Separate departmental and judicial instruments govern timelines for appeals once the Tribunal becomes functional.
Precedent Treatment: No precedence is invoked to set a different quantum; the Court follows the Circular and the departmental practice reflected therein.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court directs a specific practical measure - the petitioner is to deposit 10% of the demanded amount by a date certain (15 November 2025) as permitted by the Circular and in consonance with its terms. The Court reasons that such deposit, when made pursuant to the Circular and accompanied by the undertaking, will be treated as the statutory pre-deposit at the stage when the Appellate Tribunal becomes functional and an appeal is filed, thereby preserving the taxpayer's statutory position.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - (a) a quantified interim deposit (here 10% of demand) effectuates the Circular's requirement and operates as the pre-deposit for purposes of staying recovery pending the Tribunal's functioning and (b) such deposit will be considered the statutory pre-deposit once the Tribunal becomes functional and the appeal is filed; Obiter - the specific percentage applied in this instance follows the Circular and the Court's direction in the facts of the case rather than establishing an inflexible national rule beyond the Circular's terms.
Conclusions: The Court orders deposit of the specified percentage by the date directed, subject to which the appellate authority's order shall remain stayed; when the Tribunal becomes functional the deposit will be treated as the pre-deposit for the appeal filed within statutory timelines in section 112 read with relevant removal-of-difficulties orders.
Miscellaneous and procedural implications
Legal framework and reasoning: The Court acknowledges that the impugned order is an appealable order but that the appellate forum's non-operation creates a practical impediment to invoking section 112's appeal mechanism. The Circular is endorsed as a lawful, facilitative administrative response to that impediment.
Conclusions: The petition is disposed of on the terms directing compliance with the Circular; pending applications are disposed of. The Court's directions are functional: payment through ELL, filing an undertaking with the proper officer, stay of recovery upon compliance, and conversion of the deposit into the statutory pre-deposit when the Tribunal functions and appeal is filed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
