TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Pre-deposit required only for amount of tax involved in first order as it included liability mentioned in second order
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re-deposit required only for amount of tax involved in first order as it included liability mentioned in second order<br>By: - Bimal jain<br>Goods and Services Tax - GST<br>Dated:- 21-6-2025<br>The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of AMIT GUPTA VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI NORTH - 2025 (6) TMI 993 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that where two orders were passed and in the second orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was duplication of the tax liability already considered in the first order, then the assessee would be permitted to file two appeals under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act") challenging both orders. However, the pre-deposit amount would be paid only in respect of total amount mentioned in first order, i.e. the total amount which includes the amount of ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x demand stated in second order and therefore, no pre-deposit would be required to be made in respect of second order. Facts: Amit Gupta ("the Petitioner") was issued two Orders-in-Original, one dated January 28, 2025 by the Assistant Commissioner ("Respondent No. 3"), imposing liability of Rs.81.41 lakhs, (comprising Rs.64.31 lakhs and Rs.17.10 lakhs) and the other dated February 1, 2025 ("the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Orders") by the Additional Commissioner ("Respondent No. 2"), separately imposing liability of Rs.17.10 lakhs. The Petitioner approaches the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 & 227, contending that the Rs.17.10 lakhs demand was duplicated as it was levied on the same taxable event and entity, M/s. Caretech Systems, in both the orders. The Petitioner, by way of filing writ petition, sought reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef wherein the Petitioner prays for non-payment of pre-deposit amount twice for filing appeal of appeal which has been duplicated. Issue: Whether the petitioner is liable to make two separate pre-deposits payment with respect to appeal filed against the orders individually, or is one pre-deposit amount paid for filing appeal is sufficient, considering that the second order was a mere duplication....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the amount already imposed in the first order? Held: The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in AMIT GUPTA VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI NORTH - 2025 (6) TMI 993 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that considering the fact that there is duplication of the amount, the Petitioner is permitted to file two appeals challenging the orders passed, before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST Act. However, insofar as the prescribed pre-deposit is concerned, the said amount shall be paid only in respect of the total amount as mentioned in the Order-in-Original dated 28th January, 2025 i.e. Rs. 81,41,737/- which is a sum of two amounts i.e. Rs. 64,31,703/- and Rs. 17,10,034/-. No pre-deposit would be required to be made in respect of the Order-in-Original dated February 01, 2025. &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;(Author can be reached at [email protected])<br> Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professionals ....