Case Law Details
Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Introduction: The recent ruling by the Bombay High Court in the case of Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF Vs State of Maharashtra sheds light on the interpretation of Section 73(5) of the CGST Act regarding pre-deposits for appeals. This article delves into the details of the case, arguments presented by both parties, and the court’s decision.
Detailed Analysis: The case revolves around a petition filed by Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF against the State of Maharashtra & Ors. The petitioner, engaged in bullion trading, faced a tax demand following an Order-in-Original issued by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner had made a voluntary deposit of Rs. 1 Crore under protest, which the respondent refused to consider as a pre-deposit for filing an appeal.
The petitioner contended that the deposit made under protest should be treated as a pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act. Citing precedent, the petitioner argued that such deposits are integral to the assessment process and should not be excluded from consideration.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the deposit was voluntary and cannot be equated to a mandatory pre-deposit for appeals. They also disputed the blocking of input tax credit, claiming no such action was taken.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
