2021 (12) TMI 1102 - SCH - GST

Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - petitioner has strenuously argued that the aspect of hardship has not been considered by the Tribunal and the High Court - HELD THAT - The order passed by the High Court is examined whereby the exercise of discretion the Tribunal has not been interfered with by the High Court. There are no reason to entertain this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this petition seeking special leave to appeal is required to be dismissed - petition seeking special leave to appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of hardship in requiring additional payment by petitioner.
2. Examination of discretion exercised by Tribunal and High Court.
3. Petition seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
4. Stay order by the Supreme Court and requirement of deposit by petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the consideration of hardship faced by the petitioner due to the requirement of an additional payment of ?1.60 crores, on top of the already deposited ?2 crores. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of not taking into account the aspect of hardship. The Supreme Court noted the discrepancy between the pre-deposit amount of ?1.23 crores and the total liability of ?16.51 crores. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's discretion without interference.

2. The second issue involves the examination of the discretion exercised by the Tribunal and subsequently reviewed by the High Court. The Supreme Court scrutinized the order passed by the High Court and found no reason to entertain the petition seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Court concluded that the petition must be dismissed based on the detailed examination of the matter.

3. The third issue pertains to the petition seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, after thorough consideration, decided to dismiss the petition. However, in the interest of justice, the Court allowed the petitioner to make the requisite deposit within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

4. The final issue relates to the stay order issued by the Supreme Court on 06.11.2017, which suspended the operation of the impugned orders concerning the deposit requirement. Despite dismissing the petition seeking special leave to appeal, the Court directed the petitioner to make the necessary deposit within four weeks, emphasizing that the petition stands dismissed subject to this condition. Additionally, any pending applications were disposed of as part of the judgment.