9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 942 - HC - GSTManner of payment of pre-deposit - Blocking of Input Tax Credit - request of adjustment towards the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) to file an appeal came to be rejected by the Appellate-Authority - prayer for a direction to the Respondents to consider the deposit of Rs. 1 Crore as sufficient compliance of Section 107(6) of the CGST/MGST Act - HELD THAT - In the present case, the Petitioner is in no manner disputing that the Petitioner is required to comply with the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, in filing the appeal. In other words, the Petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment/deposit of the tax as per clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (6) of section 107 of the CGST Act. However, the question raised by the Petitioner is that for fulfilment of such condition, the amount of tax, which is voluntarily deposited by the Petitioner, under protest under sub-section (5) of section 73 of the CGST Act, by permitted to be reckoned for the purposes of a pre-deposit for compliance of sub-section (6) of section 107 of the CGST Act. In our opinion, such request for the Petitioner is not something, which is opposed to law, inasmuch as, on a holistic reading of section 73 of the CGST Act, it can be said that an amount deposited under sub-section (5) section 73 of the CGST Act is not an amount, which is deposited in pursuance of any demand or any assessment order. It is certainly a voluntary deposit and which is subject to all the contentions of the assessee. Thus, when it comes to the compliance of sub-section (6) of section 107 of the CGST Act, namely, the mandatory payment of the tax, being a condition precedent, mandated in terms of the provisions of subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b) of section 107 of the CGST Act, the principle as laid down in Supreme Court in VVF (India) Ltd. 2021 (12) TMI 477 - SUPREME COURT would become applicable considering that the provisions of the CGST Act on pre-deposit are not too different from the provisions of the MVAT act, which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court. Blocking of input tax credit - HELD THAT - The input tax credit is contended to have been blocked on 19th April 2022 and the period of one year expires on 19th April 2023, hence, by operation of law as per Section 83(2) of the CGST/MGST Act, the said attachment ceases to exists. The Respondents are directed to treat sum of Rs. 1 Crore as pre-deposit for the purpose of Section 107(6) of the CGST/MGST Act and the appeal be decided on merits - The input tax credit alleged to have been blocked vide order dated 19th April 2022 stands defreezed by operation of law - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the treatment of a deposit made under protest as a pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST/MGST Act for filing an appeal, and the blocking of input tax credit by the Respondents. Issue 1: Treatment of deposit made under protest as a pre-deposit for filing an appeal: The Petitioner, engaged in bullion trading, deposited Rs. 1 Crore under protest after the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by Respondent No. 3. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original was passed raising a tax demand, against which the Petitioner filed an appeal. The Petitioner requested the Appellate Authority to adjust the deposited amount as a pre-deposit for the appeal, which was rejected. The Petitioner argued that the deposit made under protest should be considered a pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, citing a previous court decision. The Respondents contended that the deposit was voluntary and not eligible for pre-deposit treatment. The Court held that the deposit made under protest without a demand can be considered a pre-deposit, as per the decision in Vinod Metal case, ensuring access to justice and not frustrating appeal rights due to procedural formalities. Issue 2: Blocking of input tax credit: The Respondents denied blocking the input tax credit and stated that the issue was misconceived. However, the Petitioner claimed that the credit was blocked on 19th April 2022, and by the expiry of one year as per Section 83(2) of the CGST/MGST Act on 19th April 2023, the attachment ceased to exist. The Court, considering the Respondents' statement and the operation of law, held that the input tax credit alleged to have been blocked stands defreezed. The Court ordered the Respondents to treat the deposited amount as a pre-deposit for the appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its merits within four months. The input tax credit blocking was deemed defreezed by operation of law. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with all contentions of the parties being kept open and no costs being awarded.
|
