Order Date: 25 March 2022

Facts:

• The Petitioner, M/s New Modern Industries, submitted that during the pendency of the petition an order, as contemplated under section 129[3] of CGST Act 2017, is issued on 17.03.2022 and even the subject conveyance is released as against the surety bond and the bank guarantee that is furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner has offered surety and furnished the bank guarantee for 100% of the penalty.
• The case of the petitioner is that order is issued under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and the petitioner can avail such remedy upon deposit of 25% of the penalty as contemplated under the proviso to Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Issue:

• Whether deposit was to be paid at 100% or 25% of the penalty?

Order:

• The Court observed that the petitioner, if aggrieved, must avail permitted remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. If the requirement in law is that the petitioner must deposit only 25% of the penalty to avail such remedy, the petitioner cannot be fastened with the responsibility to pay 100%.
• The High Court held that the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act upon deposit of 25% of the penalty.