2025(01)LCX0465
DSM Soft Private Limited
Versus
The Additional Commissioner of GST
W.P. Nos. 305 of 2025 decided on 08-01-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P. Nos.305, 311 & 314 of
2025
and
W.M.P. Nos.349, 350, 355, 357, 359 and 360 of 2024
M/s.DSM Soft Private Limited
(Represented by its Managing Director
Mr.Ganesh Ananthakrishnan)
11, Anu Arcade, 15th Cross Street,
Shastri Nagar, Chennai
Tamil Nadu – 600 020.
...Petitioner
in all WPs
Vs
1. The Additional Commissioner of
GST (Appeal-II)
Newry Towers, 2nd Floor
No.2054/I, II Avenue, 12th Main Road
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of
GST & Central Excise
Adyar Division, Chennai South Commissionerate
3rd Floor, No.692, M.H.U.Complex
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
... Respondents
in W.P.No.305 of 2025
1. The Assistant Commissioner of
GST & Central Excise
Adyar Division, Chennai South Commissionerate
3rd Floor, No.692, M.H.U.Complex
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
2. The Additional Commissioner of
GST (Appeal-II)
Newry Towers, 2nd Floor
No.2054/I, II Avenue, 12th Main Road
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
... Respondents
in W.P.Nos.311 & 314 of 2025
Writ Petition No.305 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order in Appeal No.262/2024 dated 23.09.2024 for the period July, 2017 to March 2020 and quash the same as it rejects the Appeal filed by the petitioner, even though the Appeal was taken on record, duly numbered and heard on merits as such a rejection is completely arbitrary and unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Writ Petition No.311 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order reference No.ZD331024161592Q in form RFD-06 dated 22.10.2024 for the period July 2024 and quash the same to the extent of appropriation of refund sanctioned vide the said demand against non-existent dues, thereby directing him to refund to the petitioner the amounts appropriated as it is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Writ Petition No.314 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order reference No.ZD3310241613601 in form RFD-06 dated 22.10.2024 for the period June 2024 and quash the same to the extent of appropriation of refund sanctioned vide the said demand against non-existent dues, thereby directing him to refund to the petitioner the amounts appropriated as it is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.
For Petitioner in all WPs
: Mrs.Sharanya Vijay .K
for Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran
For Respondents in all WPs
: Mr.Rajendran Raghavan
Senior Standing Counsel
for R1 and R2
COMMON ORDER
There are
three writ petitions filed :-
(a) W.P.No.305 of 2025 is filed challenging the order of the first respondent
dated 23.09.2024 whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 08.01.2023 was rejected on the premise that the petitioner has not
complied with the mandatory pre-deposit mandated in terms of sub-section (6) of
Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 {CGST Act}.
(b) Writ Petition No.311 of 2025 is filed challenging the impugned order
reference No.ZD331024161592Q in form RFD-06 dated 22.10.2024 for the period July
2024 and quash the same to the extent of appropriation of refund sanctioned vide
the said demand against non- existent dues, thereby directing him to refund to
the petitioner the amounts appropriated.
(c) Writ Petition No.314 of 2025 is filed challenging the impugned order
reference No.ZD3310241613601 in form RFD-06 dated 22.10.2024 for the period June
2024 and quash the same to the extent of appropriation of refund sanctioned vide
the said demand against non- existent dues, thereby directing him to refund to
the petitioner the amounts appropriated.
2. It is submitted that the order-in-original was passed on 18.01.2023 and the
petitioner filed an appeal on 13.04.2023 i.e., within 90 days prescribed for
filing an appeal in terms of Section 107 of CGST Act. The petitioner had also
credited 10% of disputed tax in cash credit ledger towards pre-deposit as
mandated in Section 107 of CGST Act. However, the petitioner did not follow up
generating challan in DRC-03. It may be relevant to note that the credit in the
electronic cash ledger was made on 13.04.2023 without generating challan. It is
submitted that the appeal was filed manually as order-in-original was served on
the petitioner physically and not on-line. It is submitted that had the
Appellate Authority notified the petitioner about the default in non- generation
of DRC-03 within the stipulated time, the petitioner could have generated the
DRC-03. It is submitted that failure to generate the DRC-03 is only a technical
violation or breach and that the substantive requirement of crediting cash
credit ledger towards the payment of pre-deposit was made within the time
stipulated for filing of appeal.
3. This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner inasmuch as the condition of payment of 10% of disputed tax as
pre-deposit was complied with in terms of Section 107 of the Act, though DRC-03
may not have been generated within the stipulated period. The infraction/
non-compliance if any is only technical. In view thereof, the Appeal shall be
taken on record duly numbered and heard on merits.
4. In the meanwhile, it is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of the
appeal, refunds which were due have been appropriated towards tax demands vide
impugned order in original dated 18.01.2023.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once this
Court finds that crediting of cash ledger to the extent of 10% would result in
compliance with the statutory condition of pre-deposit in terms of Section 107
of the Act. Any recovery thereafter would be barred in view of the embargo
contained in sub-section (7) to Section 107 of the Act.
6. The learned counsel for the Respondents would submit that the petitioner may
not be right in seeking any refund now.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty of the
Court to file a representation seeking refund of the erroneous appropriation of
the refund due in terms of Section 107 of the Act.
8. In view thereof, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit a representation
to the Respondents. If any such representation is filed, the Respondents shall
pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording a reasonable
opportunity of hearing.
9. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of and the impugned orders
are set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
08.01.2025
Index:Yes / No
Non-speaking order / speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/ No
mk / mka
To
1. The Additional Commissioner of
GST (Appeal-II)
Newry Towers, 2nd Floor
No.2054/I, II Avenue, 12th Main Road
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of
GST & Central Excise
Adyar Division, Chennai South Commissionerate
3rd Floor, No.692, M.H.U.Complex
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
W.P.Nos.305, 311 & 314 of 2025
08.01.2025