9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 65 - HC - GSTAppeal dismissed on the ground that the pre-deposit had been made in the Electronic Credit Ledger and not Electronic Cash Ledger as required under Section 107 of the GST Act - HELD THAT - Perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner had incorrectly deposited 10% in the Electronic Credit Ledger instead of the Electronic Cash Ledger as required in law as a result of which the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited 10% in the Electronic Credit Ledger. However, having regard to the subsequent event that has transpired wherein the said amount of 10% has been recovered by the respondent from the petitioner, it is deemed just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the file of the respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority for consideration on merits in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to unblock and lift the seizure of the Bank Current Account of the petitioner bearing account No.50200018448492 of HDFC Bank - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Quashing of impugned order in appeal due to incorrect deposit in Electronic Credit Ledger instead of Electronic Cash Ledger. Analysis: The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned order in appeal dated 23.06.2023, passed by respondent No.1, which dismissed the appeal due to the incorrect deposit of 10% in the Electronic Credit Ledger instead of the required Electronic Cash Ledger as per Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner had initially preferred an appeal against the order in original dated 22.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the amount deposited in the Electronic Credit Ledger had been separately recovered by the respondents post-appeal disposal, requesting the court to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal for proper consideration by respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that until the appeal is disposed of by respondent No.1, coercive actions against the petitioner should be stayed. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the impugned order was justified since the deposit was made in the Electronic Credit Ledger, which was not compliant with the law. However, the court noted that the subsequent recovery of the 10% deposit from the petitioner by the respondents warranted setting aside the impugned order. Consequently, the court ordered the restoration of the appeal to the file of respondent No.1 for a fresh consideration on merits in accordance with the law. The court further directed that no coercive actions should be taken against the petitioner until the appeal is disposed of as per the order. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to unblock and lift the seizure of the petitioner's Bank Current Account at HDFC Bank. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives, ensuring a fair and just resolution in the matter.
|
