TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ider the applicability and interpretation of Section 112(8)(b) of the CGST Act, particularly the expression " in addition to the amount paid under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107", after affording the Respondent an opportunity of hearing; 4) To clarify that the observations contained in the Order dated 08.07.2026 shall not be treated as laying down a general proposition regarding adjustment of the pre-deposit made under Section 107(6) against the statutory pre-deposit contemplated under Section 112(8)(b), without examining the statutory provision and the issue in an appropriate case. 5) To pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. The grievance of the Respondent-petitioner, in brief, is that the Order of this Tribunal dated 08.07.2026 was passed without affording it an opportunity of being heard, although the said order determined an issue having a bearing upon its rights. In the instant case, the Tribunal admitted the appeal while holding that the Opposite-party (Appellant in the present appeal) was not required to make any further pre-deposit, as m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch contention, the Appellant also cited the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in M/s Ashirwad Food Industries vs.Union of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal before this Tribunal, the mandate of the relevant statutory provision, and the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, relied upon by the Appellant, this Tribunal concluded that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellant was not required to deposit any further amount towards pre-deposit. The appeal was accordingly admitted, on being reported that the amount already deposited by the Appellant towards pre-deposit was in excess of the amount required to be deposited for preferring the appeal before the Tribunal and that the requisite Court fee had also been paid in full. Then direction was given for issuance of notice to the Respondent for filing of cross-objection. 5. The Respondent-petitioner's grievance, as revealed from its application, is that it seeks the Tribunal's intervention at this point with regard to its finding to the extent of Tribunal's interpretation of Section 112(8)(b) of the CGST/OGST Act (hereinafter f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him, and (b) a sum equal to [ten per cent.] of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount paid under sub-section (6) of section 107, arising from the said order, [subject to a maximum of [twenty crore rupees]], in relation to which the appeal has been filed. [Provided that in case of any order demanding penalty without involving demand of any tax, no appeal shall be filed against such order unless a sum equal to ten per cent. of the said penalty, in addition to the amount payable under the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 107 has been paid by the appellant.] 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Petitioner contended that, in view of the clear statutory mandate contained in Section 112(8) of the Act, the pre-deposit already made under Section 107(6) of the Act should not have been adjusted against the amount required to be deposited for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal. In support of his aforesaid submission, he placed reliance upon the order dated 27.11.2025 passes by the Hon'ble High Court o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee pays the entire disputed tax demand under protest and then pursues the appellate remedy, can he be asked to avail the remedy only after making prescribed pre-deposit as envisaged under Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the Act, insisting upon the literal interpretation of the provisions which will give only an anomalous or unworkable result. That apart the pre-deposit already made by the assessee-appellant is not a payment towards any separate or independent liability. It represents a specified portion of the disputed tax itself which the assessee is required to pay at the time of filing an appeal under Section 107(6) of the Act. 11. Therefore, the statutory requirement,though prescribed in general terms,can not be applied mechanically in every situation ignoring the facts that the assessee might have already deposited an amount which in terms of reduced tax liability is either equivalent to or even exceeds the aggregate percentage of the tax remaining in dispute before the Tribunal. In the instant case the admitted position is that the assessee-appellant has already made pre-deposit of Rs 1,13,448 as mandated under Section 107(6) of the CGST/OGST Act against the original dispu....