TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disputed tax amount. This implies that the legislative design prioritizes the financial commitment associated directly with the primary tax liability being contested. This approach aligns with the legal principle that penalties, fines, fees, and interest are subsequent to the determination of tax. The apex court in the case of PRAKASH NATH KHANNA AND ANOTHER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [ 2004 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] , has explained that the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistake. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24/Appeal Order No. dated. 28.06.2023 (Annexure-A) Order U/s 107(1) and R/w 107(6)(A) (B) of CGST and SGST Acts 2017 which has been passed without jurisdiction. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to admit the appeal filed by the petitioner. iii) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. iv) Grant costs and interest and v). Grant such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 2. In the captioned petition, the appellate authority while examining the maintainability of the appeal under Section 107(6) of the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Carbon Resources (P) Limited .vs. The State of Bihar and others [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2412 0f 2023] as well as the judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Durga Raj Vijay Kumar .vs. State of U.P. 2022(66) GSTL.321 (All.) . Referring to these judgments, he would point out that appellate authority was not justified in including other components while determining pre- deposit namely, fine, penalty and fees. He would further point out that confiscating Officer has determined tax at Rs.6,71,983/- and petitioner has already deposited 10% of the tax already determined by the Enforcement Officer. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has filed statement of objections and has contended that petitioner by questionin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of clause (b) of sub- section (6) of Section 107 of CGST Act. 8. Section 107(6) of the CGST Act outlines the conditions for filing an appeal mandating the appellant to fulfill certain financial obligations. Notably, the provision stipulates that the petitioner, in challenging a tax decision, is obliged to pre-deposit the entire amount admitted by him comprising tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty. In the context of disputing the entire tax amount, the 10% pre-deposit requirement pertains exclusively to the remaining disputed tax amount as articulated in the statutory language. Consequently, there exists a statutory basis for asserting that 10% pre-deposit obligation is confined to the contested tax quantum excluding penalty, fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 107(6) of the CGST Act signifies a crucial legislative distinction. Analyzing this deliberate separation provides insights into the lawmaker's clear intent regarding the nature and scope of the pre-deposit obligation in appeals. In legal interpretation, statutes are construed to give effect to the legislative intent. The absence of any reference to disputed interest, fine, fee, and penalty in sub-clause (b) suggests a meticulous legislative choice. If the intention were to impose a 10% pre-deposit on these consequential elements, the legislator could have explicitly included them in sub-clause (b). 10. By isolating a sum equal to ten per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in sub-clause (b), the legislator conveys a focu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting or twisting its language. 13. The appellate authority therefore, was not justified in calling upon the petitioner to deposit 10% of not only tax liability, but, also fine which is imposed by the Enforcement Officer equivalent to the value of the goods. If the order passed by the appellate authority under challenge is accepted, then the condition under clause (b) giving an option to the aggrieved person who disputes the entire tax liability to deposit 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute would be defeated. 14. Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable. There is no need for the petitioner to deposit any percentage of disputed interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order. In essence, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
