Case Details:Arup Kumar Chatterjee vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) (2025) 37 Centax 226 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Om Narayan Rai, J.
- Shri Akshat Agarwal & Ms Doyel Dey, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Nilotpal Chatterjee, Tanoy Chakraborty & Saptak Sanyal, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 against an adjudication order passed under Section 74 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 11.05.2023 for non-compliance with the mandatory statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner had sought waiver of the pre-deposit on the ground that the demand was illegal. Subsequently, the GST authorities recovered the disputed tax amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that recovery of more than 10 per cent of the disputed tax satisfied the statutory pre-deposit requirement, particularly as the Appellate Tribunal was not functional.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the Appellate Authority has no power to waive the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. However, since an amount exceeding 10 per cent of the disputed tax had already been recovered, the statutory condition of pre-deposit stood fulfilled. In the absence of a functional Appellate Tribunal, denial of an opportunity to pursue the appeal on merits would be unjust. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits without requiring any further pre-deposit, deciding the matter in favour of the assessee.
