Case Law Details
Triveni Engineers Vs Assessing Authority CT And GST Circle (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: In the case of M/s. Triveni Engineers v. Assessing Authority, the Supreme Court of India upheld the dismissal of a statutory appeal due to the appellant’s failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The Petitioner, M/s. Triveni Engineers, had filed an appeal against an assessment order but had failed to deposit the mandated 20% of the disputed tax as required under Section 16(4) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, which had previously ruled that the statutory requirement for a 20% deposit is a condition precedent for an appeal to be entertained. The court’s ruling reinforces the principle that pre-deposit conditions are mandatory and non-negotiable. It found no error in the appellate authority’s decision to dismiss the appeal, as the law clearly states that an appeal cannot be heard without this payment. The court also clarified that it could not reduce the pre-deposit amount to 10% as requested by the Petitioner, as this would be contrary to the explicit statutory provision. The decision underscores that appellate authorities and courts have limited discretion to waive or alter these requirements, and litigants seeking to bypass them will not succeed. The court, however, noted that the Petitioner could explore other legal remedies.
Facts:
M/s. Triveni Engineers (“the Petitioner”) filed a statutory appeal before the Additional Commissioner, CT & GST, against an order of assessment. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the Petitioner failed to deposit 20 percent of the disputed tax amount, which is a statutory precondition under Section 16(4) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act for maintaining such an appeal.
The Petitioner’s revision application was also dismissed. The Orissa High Court, interpreting Section 16(4), held that the law mandates the deposit of “20 percent of the tax or interest or both in dispute” before an appeal can be entertained, and rejected the Petitioner’s plea to allow a 10 percent deposit instead. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
Issue:
Whether dismissal of appeal for failure to deposit the full 20% of disputed tax under Section 16(4) was valid?
Held:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20880/2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the statutory mandate under Section 16(4) is clear, i.e. deposit of 20% of the tax or interest or both in dispute is a condition precedent for the appellate authority to entertain an appeal.
- Noted that, the High Court found no legal basis to reduce this pre-deposit requirement to 10 percent as sought by the Petitioner.
- Held that, there was no error or illegality in the appellate authority’s dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of the requisite 20% deposit.
- Held that, the Petitioner is at liberty to explore other alternative legal remedies that may be available in law. Accordingly, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and disposed of pending applications.
Our Comments:
This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory pre-deposit requirements are mandatory and non-negotiable unless the statute itself provides flexibility. In GST and allied tax laws, appellate authorities often lack discretion to waive or reduce the prescribed pre-deposit
The Delhi High Court ruling in Impressive Data Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals-I)[W.P.(C) 4662/2025 & CM APPL. 21564/2025] held that the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107 & 112 of the CGST Act is absolute and not subject to judicial waiver, even on grounds of financial hardship or pending receivables from government entities.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Diamond Entertainment Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun & Anr.[Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27771/2019] the Delhi High Court reiterated that an appeal is maintainable only if the statutory 10% of the disputed tax is deposited, in addition to any admitted dues. While the Court allowed the assessee to approach the appellate authority to seek credit for amounts already lying with the government towards the pre-deposit, the core principle remains—no statutory deposit, no appeal. This aligns with other recent strict interpretations of S.107(6) and serves as a cautionary note for litigants seeking to bypass the pre-deposit mandate.
Relevant Provision:
Section 16(4), Odisha Entry Tax Act 1999
16. Appeals-
“(4) No appeal against an order of assessment shall be entertained by the appellate authority, unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax in full and twenty per centum of the tax or interest or both, in dispute.”
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The Statutory Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, CT & GST, was dismissed as not maintainable as the petitioner fail to deposit 20% of the tax demanded, which is pre-condition for maintaining such an appeal. The Revision against the said order was also dismissed and so was the Writ Petition.
2. We find no error or illegality in dismissing the appeal for non payment of 20% of the tax demanded.
3. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. However, the petitioner is at liberty to explore other alternative legal remedies that may be available to it in law.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. The order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in disposing of the revision petition against the order of rejection of appeal as the condition for pre-deposit of 20% of the disputed tax/demand has not been complied with.
3. The attention of this Court is drawn to Section 16(4) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 which provides that appeal against an order of assessment shall not be entertained by the Appellate Authority, unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax in full and 20% of the tax or interest or both, in dispute.
4. Once the statute has put a condition for entertainability of an appeal as condition precedent, such appeal in absence of the compliance thereof is not liable to be entertained by the Appellate Authority. The word “entertained” has to be construed in a more pragmatic manner and should not be used zealously to secure the dismissal. Unless that deposit mandated under the said provision is made, the appeal would remain a dead letter and shall not be entertained by the Authority. The contention of the appellant that they may be permitted to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand. We do not find any reference of the said numerical word but for the sine qua none to make the appeal entertainable appellant is to deposit 20% of the disputed tax or interest or both. The Court cannot pass an order which per se is contrary to the statutory provisions. The Court can neither rewrite the statute nor to incorporate any word into the statutory provisions. When the language used therein is unambiguous and conveys the laudable message, it does not call for any further interpretation to be made in this regard.
5.It is manifest from Section 16 (4) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act that 20% of the tax or interest or both in dispute should be deposited so that appeal can be entertained by the Authority and, therefore, the contention that the writ petitioner should be permitted to deposit 10% thereof is unsustainable.
6. Considering the spirit of the statutory provision, we permit the writ petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax or interest or both before the Appellate Authority within three weeks from today and in the event of such deposit, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the said appeal and may pass an appropriate order as permissible in law.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
****
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
