TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business premises of the petitioner was surveyed on 17.2.2021 by the officers of DGGSTI during which certain records relating to purchases made by the petitioner from Darsh Dairy were resumed and due to pressure and coercion of the officers conducting the search, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1.40 crores under protest in the absence of any adjudicated tax liability and therefore, the said deposit was nothing but a pre-deposit made by the petitioner. He submits that the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act was initiated in which the order dated 3.12.2022 was passed against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any evidence of deposit of mandatory requirement of 10 % as required under Section 107 (6) of the Act. 5. He submits that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1.40 crores under the protest on various dates during search conducted by officers of DGGSTI and said fact could not be disputed at any stage. He submits that once the amount is still lying with the revenue, the petitioner was not required to deposit any further amount as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 107 (6) (ii) of the Act mandates for deposit of 10 % of the remaining amount of tax in dispute. The record shows that petitioner has deposited Rs. 1.40 crores under protest. The details as mentioned in para no. 29 of the writ petition is quoted hereunder :- Sl. Tax Period Disputed Tax Pre-deposit amount Sl. Tax Period Disputed Tax Pre-deposit amount 1. February 2020 9,00,000/- 90,0000/- 2. March 2020 42,10,000/- 4,21,000/- 3. April 2020 12,00,000/- 1,20,000/- 4. May 2020 56,70,000/- 5,67,000/- 5. June 2020 to Nov. 2020 5,86,86,700/- 58,68,670/- Total : 7,06,66,700/- 70,66,670/- 11. In view of the aforesaid chart, it appears that total disputed tax liability for the tax period of Feb 2020 to Nov. 2020 is of Rs. 7,06,66,700/- and the pre-deposit amount for entertaining the appeals is of Rs. 70,66,670/-. The petitioner has already deposited Rs. 1.40 crores under protest and the said amount has not been adjusted from the amount of pre-deposit as required under the Act. Once the amount being deposited by the petitioner under the protest have not been quantified f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proof of payment is required to be produced together with the filing of the appeal. Both clauses (b) and (c) employ the expression "an amount equal to ten per cent of the amount of tax disputed by the appellant". The entirety of the undisputed amount has to be deposited and 10 per cent of the disputed amount of tax is required to be deposited by the appellant. In the present case, the appellant disputes the entirety of the tax demand. Consequently, on the plain language of the statute, 10 per cent of the entire disputed tax liability would have to be deposited in pursuance of Section 26(6A). The amount which has been deposited by the appellant anterior to the order of assessment cannot be excluded from consideration, in the absence of statutory language to that effect. A taxing statute must be construed strictly and literally. There is no room for intendment. If the legislature intended that the protest payment should not be set off as the deposit amount, then a provision would have to be made to the effect that 10 per cent of the amount of tax in arrears is required to be deposited which is not the case. Justice Bhagwati in A.V Fernandez v. State of Kerala^4, writing for a Constit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the GST law. The said circular was interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Yasho Industries Ltd. (supra), as under: "6. Considering the facts of the present case, the amount paid by the petitioner as pre- deposit in compliance of section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act utilizing the amount of Electronic Credit Ledger is required to be considered valid and impugned letter dated 25.04.2023 issued by the respondent No. 2 directing the petitioner to pay pre-deposit amount through Electronic Cash Ledger is therefore, hereby quashed and set aside. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner is required to be heard on merits by considering the payment of pre- deposit by the petitioner from Electronic Credit Ledger as a sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 107(6) (b) of the CGST Act. The petition is accordingly disposed of. " 15. The judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of Yasho Industries Ltd. (supra) was assailed by the revenue before the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition, in which the Apex Court has affirmed the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court vide judgement dated 19.5.2025. 16. Further, after following the said judgemen....