Full Judgment Text
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 15 April, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 4662/2025 & CM APPL. 21564/2025
M/S IMPRESSIVE DATA SERVICES PRIVATE
LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), CENTRAL TAX
GST, DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– M/s Impressive Data
Services Private Limited seeking exemption from the pre-deposit requirements
mandated in terms of Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (hereinafter, the Act).
3. The case of the Petitioner is that a Show Cause Notice No. 11/2022-23
vide C.No. GEXCOM/AE/VRFN/OTH/157-AE/O/o/Commr-GST-
Delhi(E)/1593 dated 14th June, 2022, was issued by the Respondent-
Department– Commissioner (Appeals-1) Central Tax GST in respect of
wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ITC) by the Petitioner
during the period 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
19:52:44
W.P.(C) 4662/2025 Page 1 of 5
4. The submission of the Petitioner is that there were some mistakes in the
Returns filed, at the time when the transition took place into the GST regime and
due to such mistakes on part of the accountant of the Petitioner, wrong turnover
was mentioned, though, ITC was never availed on the said amount. Secondly, it
is submitted that in respect of two of the entities being M/s DST Kumar Traders
and M/s Vinay Sales Corporation, the Petitioner had never availed the ITC
during the relevant period. Thus, both the amounts which are being raised are
incorrectly being raised by the Respondent-Department, hence the prayer for pre-
deposit waiver.
5. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner by ld. Counsel is that the
Petitioner is a supplier to various Government entities and the Petitioner has to
recover more than Rs. 6.4 crores from Government Departments. In addition,
the bank statement of the Petitioner is relied upon to argue that some securities
to the tune of Rs.4 crores are also lying with Government Departments. Hence,
the Petitioner may be granted a waiver of pre-deposit.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner relies upon the
decision in Shubh Impex v. Union of India, (2018) 361 ELT 199 (Del) in
support of its petition. However, the said decision in Shubh Impex (Supra) is
no longer being followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court which has
followed the earlier judgment of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. CCE, (2017) 348
ELT A132 (SC) which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus, it is
the contention of the Respondent that the decision in W.P.(C) 10091/2019 titled
Diamond Entertainment Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central
Goods and Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun & Anr. would therefore, be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
19:52:44
W.P.(C) 4662/2025 Page 2 of 5
applicable.
7. The Court has considered the matter. The question raised herein is whether
the requirements mandated in terms of Section 107(6) of the Act for pre-deposit
can be waived or not. Section 107(6) of the Act reads as under:
“(6) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless
the appellant has paid—
(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee
and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is
admitted by him; and
(b) a sum equal to ten per cent. of the remaining amount of
tax in dispute arising from the said order, [subject to a
maximum of twenty-five crore rupees,] in relation to which
the appeal has been filed.
[Provided that no appeal shall be filed against an order
under sub-section (3) of section 129, unless a sum equal to
twenty-five per cent of the penalty has been paid by the
appellant]”
In terms of the above provision, insofar as the admitted tax, interest or penalty is
concerned, the entire amount would have to be deposited. In so far as the disputed
amount is concerned, 10% of the tax would have to be deposited as a pre-deposit
along with the appeal. The said provision does not, in the opinion of this Court,
give discretion for waiver of the pre-deposit. In any event in Diamond
Entertainment (supra) in the context of the Excise Act, the Court has clearly
observed as under:
“12. In Pioneer Corporation v. Union of India, (2016) 340
ELT 63, Shubh Impex v. Union of India, (2018) 361 ELT
199 (Del) and Manoj Kumar Jha v. DRI, (2019) 365 ELT
166 (Del), this Court, even while dealing with cases in
which the appeal had been filed before the CESTAT after
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
19:52:44
W.P.(C) 4662/2025 Page 3 of 5
th
6 August, 2014, nevertheless, allowed the appeal to be
prosecuted on payment of partial pre-deposit, given the
financial stringency in which the respective appellants,
before it, were placed; a reading of these decisions would
reveal, that the attention of this Court had not been invited
to its earlier judgment in Anjani Technoplast (supra) which
set out, in clear and unambiguous terms, that every appeal,
before the CESTAT, filed after the amendment of Section
35F/129E would be maintainable only if mandatory pre-
deposit were made.
xxxx
15. In view of the aforesaid merger, of the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Anjani Technoplast (supra)
with the order passed by the Supreme Court in appeal
thereagainst, we are bound, by Article 141 of
the Constitution of India, to follow the law laid down
in Anjani Technoplast (supra), in preference to that laid
down in Pioneer Corporation (supra), Manoj Kumar
Jha (supra) and Shubh Impex (supra).
xxxx
21. Inasmuch as the judgment in Pioneer
Corporation (supra), Shubh Impex (supra) and Manoj
Kumar Jha (supra) are contrary to the law laid down
in Anjani Technoplast (supra) as well as to the law laid
down in Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr.
Anand Prakash Mishra (supra), A.B. Bhaskara
Rao v. C.B.I. (supra), Manish Goel v. Rohini
Goel (supra) and State of Bihar v. Arvind Kumar (supra),
none of which have been noticed in the said decisions, it
is not possible for us to follow the decisions in Pioneer
Corporation (supra), Shubh Impex (supra) and Manoj
Kumar Jha (supra), on which learned counsel places
reliance.”
8. In view of the settled legal position, the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
19:52:44
W.P.(C) 4662/2025 Page 4 of 5
cannot be entertained. However, if there is any amount lying with the
Government entities which the Petitioner wishes to rely upon as being part of the
pre-deposit, the Petitioner is free to make such a prayer before the concerned
Appellate Authority. It is also submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that Rs. 20
lakhs is also lying with the Department out of a total of Rs. 64 lakhs which is to
be deposited by the Petitioner. This submission may also be made before the
concerned Appellate Authority.
9. The Petitioner is accordingly relegated to the Appellate authority under
Section 107 of the Act. All contentions are left open. The petition is disposed of
in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
10. Needless to add, this Court has not considered the merits of the matter.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
APRIL 15, 2025
dj/ss
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.04.2025
19:52:44
W.P.(C) 4662/2025 Page 5 of 5