The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, emphasizing the legislative intent to prioritize the financial commitment associated directly with the primary tax liability being contested, excluding penalties, fines, fees, and interest from the 10% pre-deposit obligation.

ORDER :

1. The captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order, or direction in certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing M/s. Tejas-Arecanut TradersGST/2023-24/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 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “CGST Act”) has declined to admit the appeal on the ground that petitioner has failed to comply the mandate of pre-deposit and therefore, has declined to admit the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend that the order of the appellate authority calling upon the petitioner to deposit 10% of Rs.1,41,11,633/-is one without jurisdiction and therefore, he would point out that the impugned order is in disregard to Section 107(6) of the CGST Act.

4. The counsel on record while referring to Section 107(6) of the CGST Act would contend that petitioner has challenged the entire demand confirmed in the confiscation order and therefore, he would contend that the expression “tax in dispute” provided under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act does not include interest, penalty, fine and fee. While referring to the language of Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, he would contend that deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount means only tax amount and not entire composite amount comprising tax, fine, penalty and fee. Therefore, he would vehemently argue and contend that the appellate authority has wrongly calculated pre-deposit of Rs.14,11,163/-which is 10% of total demand that is Rs.1,41,11,633/-. To substantiate his grounds, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Patna in the case of Carbon Resources (P) Limited vs. 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 questioning the pre-deposit quantum is virtually seeking to defeat the provisions of the appeal by contending that while preferring an appeal under Section 107(6), 10% of the tax is to be paid and not on 10% of the disputed amount. He would point out that since petitioner is disputing the claim of the Enforcement Officer in entirety, he is bound to pay 10% on entire amount determined by the Enforcement Officer. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA. Perused the material on record.

7. Section 107 sub-clause (6) of the CGST Act reads as under:

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, 2003 (3) SCC 57.

“6. No appeal shall be filed under subsection (1), unless the appellant has paid:

(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and