TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterim order dated 9 December 2025, which had been passed by the previous Bench, of which one of us (Advait M. Sethna, J.) was a member, this Court observed that, in the event an appeal was preferred, then, the Applicant would be required to make a mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the tax amount demanded. Accordingly, the Bench held that, while entertaining the present petition and confirming the ad-interim relief granted by order dated 7 March 2025, the Applicant must deposit 10% of the tax amount within four weeks from the date of the said order. If this amount was not deposited, the interim relief granted would stand vacated without further reference of this Court. 3. Mr. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, has brou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that 10% of the tax in arrears is required to be deposited which is not the case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court took into account the amount paid under protest and held that the rejection of the appeal on such ground of pre-deposit requirement was not in order. The appeal would therefore have to be restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, subject to due verification that 10% of the disputed tax amount. 5. Mr. Sridharan has referred to the impugned order in the present case, wherein the Adjudicating Authority has observed that the disputed tax liabilities relates to the period from 1 October 2018 to March 2022. The Authority further held that the TCS self-assessed, already collected and paid from April 2021 onwards for certain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 August 2023 filed by the Applicant. The Adjudicating Authority has observed that the payment of TCS from April 2021 may not constitute an admission of past liability, but it certainly amounts to an admission of liability from April 2021 onwards, particularly since there is no provision under the GST law to make payment of tax liabilities under protest. He has further submitted that, in light of this finding, the amount of TCS paid by the Applicant from April 2021 cannot be treated as a disputed liability; rather, by making such payment, the Applicant has accepted it as an admitted liability. Accordingly, he submits that the payment of TCS by the Applicant would fall within the ambit of Section 107(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, mandating 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acterized is to be determined at the hearing of the Petition 10. The Supreme Court in VVF (India) (Supra) has considered a similar provision as Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 viz. Section 26(6A)(c) of MVAT Act which provided that in appeal against an order, an amount equal to 10% of the amount of tax disputed is to be deposited by the Appellant. The Supreme Court considered that an amount had been deposited by the appellant anterior to the assessment order and held that such an amount cannot be excluded from consideration in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect. It was further held that an amount paid under protest must be taken into account, and the requirement of depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount is re....