The Calcutta High Court held that the DGGI has recovered more than 50% of demand, the pre-deposit is not required.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) has observed that the appellants/writ petitioners had paid Rs.5,50,62,464/-, which according to the appellants, were compelled to be paid, which stand is being vehemently disputed by the C.G.S.T. Authorities, till the writ petition is heard and decided, the said amount, which has been paid by the petitioners shall be treated as a deposit and shall abide by the final orders that may be passed in the writ petition.
The petitioner has filed the intra-Court appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Bench by which the Single Bench declined to grant any interim order/interim protection but directed the respondents/Department to file their affidavit-in-opposition within a time frame and also granted liberty to the appellants/writ petitioners to file a reply.
The appellants contended that during the course of investigation, the appellants were directed to appear before the investigating authorities viz.DGGI at New Delhi and they co-operated in the enquiry and a sum of Rs.5,50,62,464.00 was compelled to be paid by the appellants, which was remitted.
The total demand of C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T. was Rs.8,73,86,825/- and a sum of Rs.5,50,62,464/- has been appropriated as against the said demand and apart from that in the order of adjudication, penalty has been imposed under Section 74(9) read with Section 74(1) of the Act.
The bench held that more than 50% of the demand has already been recovered from the petitioners, the interest of the Revenue stands sufficiently safeguarded. Even assuming an appeal had to be preferred against the impugned adjudication order, the appellants would be required to deposit only 10% of the disputed tax. Therefore, this is also one more reason to treat the payment of more than Rs.5.50 crores as a deposit till the writ petition is heard and disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Murshidabad Flour Mill Private Limited & Anr. Versus Joint Commissioner, CGST, Bolpur Commissionerate & Ors.
Case No.: M.A.T. 1014 of 2025 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025
Date: 12.09.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Vinay Kr. Shraff
Counsel For Respondent: Kishore Dutta, Ld. A.G.
Read More: CBDT Extends Due Date For Filing ITR
