GST – Madras High Court: Once there is a mandatory pre-deposit, the demand order has no force and all further recovery proceedings will be subject to the final outcome of the appeal -Petitioner is directed to either deposit penalty of 200% of tax to safeguard the interest of revenue or furnish bank guarantee [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
30-May-2023 13:03:09
Order Date – 05 May 2023
Parties: Haresh Kumar, Proprietor, Mahalaxmi Metal Company Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Adjudication and The Deputy Commissioner of ST (Appeals)
Facts –
- The Petitioner, Haresh Kumar, Proprietor, Mahalaxmi Metal Company, had transported consignment of goods vide tax invoice dated 18.04.2023, which was intercepted and detained by the first respondent.
- Though the consignment was accompanied the E-Way Bill as is required. The goods have detained on the ground that the supplier, had wrongly passed on the Input Tax Credit and thereby entailing the petitioner to avail and utilize the same for discharging tax liability on the supplies made by the supplier.
- The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and has paid 25% of the disputed penalty, whereas, the respondents have imposed penalty equivalent to 100% value of the goods that was detained.
Issue –
- Whether the petitioner is required to pay penalty equivalent to 100% value of goods that detained?
Order –
- The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the very purpose of fixing the mandatory pre-deposit is to do away with the procedure of granting stay after hearing, which was delaying the disposal of the appeal earlier. Mandatory pre-deposit was made so that the interest of the revenue can be safeguarded as the appeal would take longer time for final disposal.
- Although the Officer who detained the goods has become functus officio, once there is a mandatory pre-deposit, the order has no force and all further recovery proceedings will be subject to the final outcome of the appeal.
- Therefore, to balance the interest of the revenue and the petitioner, there can be a direction to the petitioner to deposit the maximum penalty of 200% of the tax after adjusting the amount already deposited to safeguard the interest of the revenue.
- In the alternative, the petitioner can be directed to furnish Bank Guarantee in terms of Section 129(c) of the respective GST enactments and the Rules made thereunder. On furnishing Bank Guarantee for the balance amount of penalty or payment of the same in cash, the goods shall be released forthwith.
- The writ petition disposed of.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation