2025(02)LCX0438

Karnataka High Court

Sri Nandi Studio And Colour Lab

Versus

The Asst. Commissioner Of Central Tax

WRIT PETITION NO. 25272 OF 2024 decided on 19-02-2025

NC

NC: 2025:KHC:7756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION NO.25272 OF 2024 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S. SRI. NANDI STUDIO AND
COLOUR LAB,
5/1, BASAVESHWAR COMPLEX,
B.H. ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201,
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. D.S. JAGADISH,
S/O SRI. SHEKHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NATURE OF BUSINESS: TRADING IN
PHOTOGRAPHIC
FILM IN ROLLS, SENSITIZED,
UNEXPOSED, OF ANY MATERIAL
OTHER THAN PAPER, PAPER
BOARD OR TEXTILES.
CERTIFICATE NO. 29AFNPJ3944GIZ4
PAN NO. AFNPJ3944G.
                                                        …PETITIONER

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION,
VI CROSS, ASHWATH NAGAR OFF
SAVALANGA ROAD,

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
TAX (APPEALS) S-1 AND S-2,
VINAYAKA MARG,
SIDHARTHA NAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 011
                                                                                    …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) DIRECTION TO CANCEL THE ORDER-IN- ORIGINAL PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN APPEAL NO. MYS-SPP- ADC/JC(A)-090-2022-23-GST DATED 29.12.2022 AND CONSIDERED THE ISSUES ON MERITS. (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning Annexure-B, Order bearing No.MYS-SPP-ADC/JC(A)-090-2022-23-GST dated 29.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2-Appellate Authority, by which the petitioner’s appeal is rejected solely on the ground that the statutory deposit of 10% is not deposited along with appeal.

2. Heard Smt. R.Prathibha and Sri. S.Parthasarathi, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri. Aravind.V.Chavan, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the original order was passed on 20.10.2021 under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘2017 Act’). Learned counsel would submit that Section 107 of 2017 Act provides appeal remedy against the said order and it also provides for three months time to file appeal. It is submitted that against original order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 on 02.12.2021, which was within the time prescribed under Section 107 of 2017 Act. Further, learned counsel would submit that the amount of 10% statutory deposit was made five days later i.e., 07.12.2021, which was within the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2-Appellate Authority committed grave error in dismissing the appeal without taking note of the fact that statutory deposit was made within limitation period. Therefore, learned counsel would pray for setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner failed to make statutory deposit along with appeal but he submits that deposit made on 07.12.2021 was within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 107 of 2017 Act.

5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority ought not to have rejected petitioner’s appeal solely on the ground that 10% of the disputed amount of tax has not been deposited along with appeal.

6. Section 107 of the 2017 Act provides for appeal against decision or order passed under the Act and it also prescribes three months time to file appeal from the date of communication of the order. Further, one month extended time is provided under Section 107(4) of 2017 Act to file appeal and the said period could be condoned if acceptable cause is shown.

7. Section 107(6)(b) of 2017 Act states that no appeal shall be filed under Section 107(1) of 2017 Act, unless the appellant pay a sum equal to 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the order under appeal.

8. In the instant case, though the petitioner has not deposited the amount as required under Section 107(6)(b) of 2017 Act along with appeal, but deposited the said 10% of the amount within five days from the date of filing of the appeal. Both filing of the appeal and deposit as required under Section 107(6)(b) of 2017 Act was within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107(1) of 2017 Act. A liberal interpretation is to be given to Section 107(6) of 2017 Act and if the statutory deposit as required is made within the limitation prescribed under Section 107(1) of 2017 Act, then it shall be treated as deposit made along with appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal as well as deposited the statutory deposit within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107(1) of 2017 Act.

9. In view of the above, the following

ORDER

(a) Writ petition is allowed;

(b) Impugned Order bearing No.MYS-SPPADC/JC(A) 090-2022-23-GST dated 29.12.2022
(Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.2 is quashed.

(c) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits.

Sd/-   
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE