TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isputes the order dated 18 March 2025, whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on the basis that using Input Tax Credit (ITC) to pay the 10% pre-deposit was not permitted and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). 4. The impugned order could have been appealed to the GST Tribunal. However, admittedly, the GST Tribunal is not functioning and, therefore, we are required to entertain this petition. Besides, before the impugned order was made, neither was any notice given nor was the Petitioner heard on the issue of alleged non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit, breaching the principle of natural justice. In case of such a breach, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t available in the electronic credit ledger can only be used for making payment towards output tax, and that too, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed. He then referred to Rule 86(2) to submit that the electronic credit ledger can be debited to the extent of discharge of any liability in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the CGST Act. He submitted that a pre-deposit for maintainability of an appeal can hardly be styled as any liability of tax, and utilising the ITC from out of such electronic credit ledger cannot be regarded as discharging any liability in accordance with the provisions of Section 49(2) of the CGST Act. 7. Mr. Sharma further pointed out that the stay order issued by the Hon'ble Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the disputed tax for an appeal can be complied with by utilising the amount available in the electronic credit ledger i.e. through ITC. Whatever may be the submissions of Mr. Sharma before this Court regarding this Court's view in Oasis Realty (supra) warranting reconsideration, there can be no doubt that this Court's decision in Oasis Realty (supra) was binding upon the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority was not justified ignoring this decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Such an approach, if countenanced, would be contrary to the judicial or quasi-judicial discipline. 12. Instead, the Appellate Authority chose to rely on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the impugned order shall remain stayed". 15. The observations in paragraphs 77 and 78 of the Patna High Court's order, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has now stayed, read as follows:- "77. In view of the consideration above, this court is of the opinion that the appeals filed by the instant petitioners under section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act were not maintainable as the pre-deposit (10 per cent.) as per section 107(6)(b) of the Act, was not complied with by the petitioners. 78. The conclusion of the appellate authority that payment of pre-deposit (10 per cent.) can only be made through ECL, requires no interference by this court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India." 16. Thus, Mr. Patkar is just....