TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has paid a sum equal to 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute - there is a clear distinction drawn in the said provision restricting the pre-deposit amount to a sum equal to 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute. The discretion which the court can exercise has to be in terms of the provision of the statute more particularly when the appellants had filed the writ petition on account of the fact that the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted under the Act - the legislative intent as amplified in Section 112(8)(b) of the Act clearly restricts the pre-deposit amount to 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute and does not speak of interest. The discretion to be exercised by the court should be in terms of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial year. 3. Since the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, the appellants had filed the writ petition in which the impugned order has been passed. 4. The learned Government counsel would contend that the order passed by the learned Single Bench is a discretionary order to secure the interest of revenue and there is no error in the said order. 5. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Concord Fortune Minerals India Private Limited reported in (2018) 12 SCC 279 pointed out that High Court while deciding the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should exercise its discretion consistent with the relevant provisions and in the said case the provision related to limitation. 6. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in 2023- VIL-923-KAR wherein the court was dealing with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act which deals with appeal to appellate authority and clause (b) of Section 107(6) is in pari materia with clause (b) of Section 112(8) and while interpreting Section 107(6) the learned Single Bench of the High Court of Karnataka held that 10% pre-deposit obligation is confined to the disputed tax quantum excluding penalty fee and interest. The court then proceeded to examine the legislative intent and held that the absence of any reference to disputed interest, fine, fee and penalty in Sub-clause (b) of Section 107(6) suggests a meticulous legislative choice. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble High Court in Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
