Order to Be Set Aside as Appeal Was Dismissed on Account of Pre-Deposit Shortfall Without Opportunity to Rectify Shortfall | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 27 February, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: D N Polymers vs. Union of India - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 511 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
-
Bharat Raichandani, Mahesh Raichandani & Jasmine Dixit for the Petitioner.
-
Ms S.D. Vyas, Addl. GP, Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP, Suman Kumar Das & Ram Ochani, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court challenging an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which rejected their appeal due to an alleged shortfall in the pre-deposit mandated under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act. The petitioner asserted that the full pre-deposit had been made and, in any case, they were neither informed of any deficiency nor granted an opportunity to remedy it before their appeal was dismissed. The petitioner contended that such dismissal constituted a breach of natural justice. Given that the GST Tribunal was non-functional at the time, the petitioner lacked an effective appellate remedy and, therefore, approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court through a writ petition.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the petitioner was deprived of an efficacious remedy due to the non-functionality of the GST Tribunal. The Court observed that procedural fairness required the petitioner to be informed of any pre-deposit shortfall and given an opportunity to rectify it before their appeal was dismissed. As this procedural safeguard was not adhered to, the rejection of the appeal was deemed to be in violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored before the Commissioner (Appeals), with directions to afford the petitioner a reasonable timeframe to rectify any pre-deposit deficiency before adjudicating the appeal on merits.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Delphi World Money Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 168 taxmann.com 341/[2025] 92 GSTL 226/107 GST 236 (Bombay) (para 6) followed.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
