TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 26th August, 2025 rejecting the application for refund of pre-deposit paid under Form GST RFD-01. Thus, the issue that arises in the present writ petition concerns the denial of refund of the pre-deposit despite partial allowance of the petitioner's appeal. 3. The Adjudicating Authority by the Order dated 21st February, 2024 assessed the tax that is required by the petitioner to be paid to the tune of Rs. 48,96,54,949/-. The order of the Adjudicating Authority was challenged before the First Appellate Authority (Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal-1), Mumbai) under Section 112 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('MG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, State Goods & Services Tax & Ors. 2025 (2) TMI 352 Jharkhand High Court. 6. The application for refund was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax for the following reasons, the relevant portion which reproduced reads thus:- "4. I have gone through the contentions put-forth by the taxpayer in support of the refund claim. I have also gone through the submissions, documents and records pertaining to the present refund application. On verification of the same, it is found that the Order In Appeal No. ZD2703250747065 dated 17.03.2025 has partially modified the adjudication order and dropped the demand of Rs. 31.45 crores approx. and confirmed the demand of Rs. 17.50 crores, against which the taxpayer intends to file an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the nature of statutory pre-deposit, the same cannot be indefinitely retained either by the State or the Centre, and that such pre-deposit refund is a vested right accruing to the assessee upon the appeal being decided in its favour. 8. It is respectfully submitted that both the above decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts and do not advance the case of the taxpayer. In both cases relied upon by the taxpayer, the appellate proceedings had attained finality, and no further appeal was pending or contemplated by the Department. However, in the present case, the taxpayer itself has expressed intention to challenge the Order-in-Appeal before the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellate proceedings in the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3170G." 7. Suffice it to observe that the gross tax demand at the stage of adjudication confirmed as per Order in original dated 21st February, 2024 was Rs. 48,96,54,949/-. The amount of tax demand confirmed in the order in appeal dated 17th March, 2025 by the First Appellate Authority is Rs. 17,50,70,729/-. Therefore, the Appeal came to be partly allowed by dropping the demand to the extent 64%. 8. What the petitioner wanted was a refund of 10% of the pre-deposit made as against the demand of Rs. 31,45,84,219/- that was dropped. It is pertinent to note that the department did not file any appeal against the dropping of the demand to the extent of Rs. 31,45,84,219/-. Hence, according to us, to the extent the petitioner has succeeded i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect of which the petitioner is aggrieved. 11. It is pertinent to note that under the erstwhile indirect tax regime, the amount paid as a condition precedent for hearing an appeal, did not bear the character of duty but bears the character only of a security deposit, being a statutory condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. Such an amount needs to be returned to the concerned appellant, whether the appellant succeeds fully or partly. If any authority is needed in support of this proposition, we may refer to Nelco Limited Vs. UoI (2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.)] maintained in 2002 (144) E.L.T. A104 (S.C.)]. 12. Once the demand of INR 31,45,84,219/- stood set aside, a statutory right accrued in favour of the Petitioner to receive a ....