Payments made under protest can count as valid pre-deposits under Section 107 of the GST Act, ensuring equitable relief and proper adjudication in tax disputes.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Impugned Order No.226/2023-24/ADC-AII/GST dated 05.10.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("Annexure C");

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent to restore the GST appeal bearing no. 117/2023-24 A-II (ADC) filed by the Petitioner and to hear and decide the same on merits; ("ANNEXURE-K")

c) Direct the Respondents to pay costs of these proceedings to the Petitioner; and

d) Issue any other Writs/ directions/ orders as may be deemed fit and grant such other appropriate reliefs to the Petitioner including costs, in the ends of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Getronics Solutions India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals II) Bengaluru – W.P.No.11470/2024 dated 14.11.2025, wherein it was held as under;

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“The petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction:

I. Declaring that:

(i) the payment of Rs.1,99,10,490/- made under protest during the course of the assessment proceedings satisfies the condition of pre- deposit of 10% of the total disputed tax of Rs.11,15,72,010/-, as required under Section 107 (6) of the GST Act; or In the alternative.

(ii) the payment of Rs.1,14,14,339/- made by debiting the Electronic Credit Ledger satisfies the condition of pre-deposit of 10% of the total disputed tax of Rs.11,15,72,010/-, as required under Section 107 (6) of the GST Act.

II. Quashing the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure-H) bearing No.A.No.06/2023-24 A-II (COMM) issued by the 1^st Respondent rejecting the appeal in 24/2023- 24 GST (Commr.) A-II, filed by the Petitioner; and

III. Restoring the appeal in 24/2023-24 to the file of the 1^st Respondent with the direction that the same be heard on merits; and IV. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to July 2017 to March 2020, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act against the petitioner during the pendency of which, the petitioner made a payment of 10% of the disputed demand amounting to Rs.1,99,10,490/- under protest and petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,99,10,490/- which was in excess of 10% of the disputed demand by way of and under protest and subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. The said proceedings culminated in Adjudication Order-in-Original dated 36.02.2023 confirming the demand of tax, interest and penalty proposed in the show cause notice and raising the total demand of Rs.11,41,38,249/- against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent and informed him that the payment of Rs.1,99,10,490/- during the pendency of the original proceedings was in excess of 10% pre-deposit and the same is to be considered for the purpose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. However, the 1^st respondent - Appellate Authority informed the petitioner that the aforesaid amount, albeit in excess of 10% deposited by the petitioner cannot be treated as a pre deposit of 10% for the purpose of the appeal. As a result of which, the petitioner made an additional payment of Rs.1,14,