Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTGSTAT Non-Constitution: Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays Recovery Subject To Payment of...

GSTAT Non-Constitution: Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays Recovery Subject To Payment of Rs. 3.53 Crores

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed the recovery of interest and penalty amount subject to payment of Rs.3,53,51,777 as the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is still not constituted.

The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh and Justice Vivek Rusia has prima facie observed that the petitioner has wrongly been imposed a penalty because the petitioner voluntarily informed its jurisdictional R.O. through its letter about appropriate classification of its mouth fresheners under HSN Chapter Head 2008.

The petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the effect of order be stayed because at present, the petitioner is not having remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal. 

The department has produced the copy of Circular No.224/18/2024 – GST dated 11.07.2024, by which the guidelines for recovery of outstanding dues have been issued till the Appellate Tribunal comes into operation. In view of the guidelines, in case the taxpayer does not make payment of the amount equal to the amount of pre-deposit or does not provide the undertaking/declaration to the proper officer, then it is presumed that taxpayer is not willing to file an appeal against the order of appellate authority.

The court while listing the matter  after four weeks, stayed the recovery of interest and penalty amount was subject to payment of Rs.3,53,51,777.

Case Details

Case Title: Macwell Food Products Private Ltd. Vs Union Of India And Others 

Case No.: WP No. 10727 of 2025

Date: 28-04-2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Govind Krishna Dixit

Counsel For Respondent: Prasanna Prasad

Read More: No Orders Permissible Under Omitted Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules Post 8 October 2024: Uttarakhand High Court

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

DRC-01 Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: GSTAT  

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Division Bench, has delivered a...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 14 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 14, 2026.GSTGST DEPT. CANT ADJUST SANCTIONED...

No GST On Recovery Of Electricity Charges At Actual Cost Without Markup: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has held that electricity charges recovered...

18% GST On New Water Pipeline Construction: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has ruled that works involving the...

More like this

DRC-01 Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: GSTAT  

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Division Bench, has delivered a...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 14 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 14, 2026.GSTGST DEPT. CANT ADJUST SANCTIONED...

No GST On Recovery Of Electricity Charges At Actual Cost Without Markup: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has held that electricity charges recovered...