The Bombay High Court recently clarified that the system-generated provisional acknowledgement receipt received on the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Portal, is adequate proof of payment of the mandatory pre-deposit equal to 10% of the disputed amount in terms of Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017.
The Writ Petition was filed by Delphi World Money Ltd.impugning an Order-In-Appeal filed by The Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai wherein the appeal was dismissed citing the Petitioner’s failure to submit any valid proof regarding payment of the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed amount and that no valid documents had been adduced to establish the Petitioner’s position as the authorised signatory to sign the appeals under the Companies Act, 1956.
Know When to Say No to Cash Transactions, Click Here
Sriram Sridharan and Shanmuga Dev, appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the amount of pre-deposit paid has been specified under S. No.15 of Form APL-01 and that Exhibit M accompanied to the Petition contains screenshots of the Electronic Credit Ledger, and the Electronic Cash Ledger of the Petitioner downloaded from the GSTN portal which showed a cumulative payment of Rs.4,42,55,474/-.
The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the Appellant was not called upon to adduce any documents such as a board resolution proving the Appellant’s right to be an authorized signatory, and further rebuked the Respondent Department for not even checking the GSTN Portal to confirm the same.
Know When to Say No to Cash Transactions, Click Here
In addition, the Bench held that the system-generated provisional acknowledgement generated automatically by the GST portal upon filing of an appeal by an assessee serves as adequate evidence to prove that the Asssessee had paid the requisite pre-deposit.
Laying reference to the decision passed by other Benches of the Delhi High Court in cases such as Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) and Heena Metals v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), the Delhi High Court proceeded to quash the impugned order and remanded the same to the Respondent for de novo consideration and allied order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
