https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90644 The HC set aside the impugned order dated 18 March 2025, holding that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for using ITC to make the 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act without issuing any notice or affording the petitioner a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the jurisdictional HC had previously ruled that ITC utilization for pre-deposit is permissible, and the Appellate Authority should have notified the petitioner before non-suiting them. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority improperly disregarded binding jurisdictional precedent and the Supreme Court's stay on contrary observations from another HC. Consequently, the petitioner's appeal was restored for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:49 +0530 Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90644 The HC set aside the impugned order dated 18 March 2025, holding that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for using ITC to make the 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act without issuing any notice or affording the petitioner a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the jurisdictional HC had previously ruled that ITC utilization for pre-deposit is permissible, and the Appellate Authority should have notified the petitioner before non-suiting them. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority improperly disregarded binding jurisdictional precedent and the Supreme Court's stay on contrary observations from another HC. Consequently, the petitioner's appeal was restored for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Highlights GST Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:49 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90644