Navnit Motors Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, (Appeals III), Mumbai

Judgment text excerpt

2025:BHC-OS:10879-DB Sayyed 15-WP.2345.2025.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2345 OF 2025 Navnit Motors Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, (Appeals-III), Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Ishaan V. Patkar a/w Mr. Durgesh G. Desai & Mr. Yeshwant J. Patil i/by Alaksha Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad (through VC) & Ms. Priyanka Singh for the Respondents. _____________________________________________________ CORAM: M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 14 July 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT:-(Per M. S. Sonak, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner disputes the order dated 18 March 2025, whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal on the basis that using Input Tax Credit (ITC) to pay the 10% pre-deposit was not permitted and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). 4. The impugned order could have been appealed to the GST Tribunal. However, admittedly, the GST Tribunal is not functioning and, therefore, we are required to entertain this petition. Besides, before the impugned order was made, neither was any notice given nor was the Petitioner heard on the issue of alleged non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit, breaching the principle of natural justice. Page 1 of 6 Sayyed 15-WP.2345.2025.docx In case of such a breach, the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies is ordinarily not insisted upon. 5. Mr. Patkar submitted that the impugned