Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Pre-deposit requirement in GST appeal: 25% deposit and bank attachment lifted subject to set-off and verification, relief granted despite limitation expiry</h1> Pre-deposit of disputed tax was imposed as a condition for entertaining de novo proceedings; the court directed deposit of 25% of the disputed tax and ... Quash and remit for fresh adjudication on merits - pre-deposit as condition for de novo proceedings - bank attachment to be vacated subject to compliance - set-off of amounts already recovered towards pre-deposit - exercise of discretionary relief despite expiry of appeal limitation u/s 107 - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has already expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 12.12.2025. It is made clear that bank attachment of the petitioner shall be lifted subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondents is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today. Needless to state, any tax amount already recovered / paid by the petitioner against the tax liability confirmed by the impugned order shall be set off and adjusted towards the pre-deposit of 25% as ordered above subject to verification. If the said amount is over and above the 25% of disputed tax, no further amount is required to be paid by the petitioner as condition for de novo proceedings. Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Issues: Whether the impugned GST recovery order dated 25.02.2025 should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits subject to a pre-deposit by the petitioner.Analysis: The writ petition challenges the impugned order confirming tax demand and records that the limitation for statutory appeal has expired. The petitioner contends that excess ITC was reversed in subsequent returns and portions of the disputed tax were already recovered/paid. The Court notes precedents permitting quashment and remand where statutory remedies are time-barred, subject to safeguards to protect revenue interests. Balancing the competing interests, the Court examines the adequacy of a conditional pre-deposit and requirement to permit fresh, de novo consideration of the show cause notice on merits within a specified timeframe.Conclusion: The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration on merits subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Register within thirty days and filing a reply with supporting documents; bank attachment shall be vacated upon compliance and amounts already recovered shall be set off against the pre-deposit. This outcome is in favour of the Assessee.Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal period has lapsed and the court exercises writ jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy is to quash the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh consideration on merits subject to a reasonable pre-deposit as a condition to protect revenue, with set-off of amounts already recovered.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
