Time-barred GST appeals restored on condition of 25% pre-deposit of disputed tax

Issue

Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to restore statutory appeals that were rejected by the Appellate Authority as time-barred and for lack of pre-deposit, to allow the assessee to contest the demand on merits.

Facts

Assessment & Rectification: The petitioner challenged assessment orders for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. Prior rectification applications filed for the 2017-18 orders had been rejected.
Delayed Appeals: The petitioner subsequently filed statutory appeals under Section 107 of the CGST/TNGST Act, but these were filed beyond the condonable period of limitation.
Rejection by Appellate Authority: The Appellate Authority rejected the appeals on two grounds: they were time-barred, and the petitioner had failed to make the mandatory pre-deposit.
Writ Petition: The petitioner approached the High Court via writ petitions, requesting an opportunity to prosecute the challenge on its merits.

Decision

Intervention for Substantial Justice: The High Court noted the rejection due to limitation and lack of pre-deposit but observed that in similar matters, the Court had intervened to restore appeals to ensure substantive justice.
Conditional Restoration: To balance the interest of Revenue with the petitioner’s right to be heard, the Court directed the petitioner to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash within 30 days.
Direction to Appellate Authority: Upon proof of such deposit, the Appellate Authority was directed to restore the appeals to its file and dispose of them on merits expeditiously.

Key Takeaways

Writ Remedy for Limitation: While Section 107 imposes strict timelines, High Courts may use their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delays beyond the statutory period if it serves the interest of justice.

Higher Pre-Deposit as Deterrent: The “price” for restoring a lapsed appeal via writ is often higher (e.g., 25%) than the standard statutory pre-deposit (10%), reflecting a judicial balance between granting relief and securing revenue.

Cash Payment: The specific direction to deposit “in cash” (Electronic Cash Ledger) often precludes the use of Input Tax Credit (Electronic Credit Ledger) for such court-ordered pre-deposits.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

SMP Engineers Electricals (P.) Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tamilnadu^*

C. Saravanan, J.

WP Nos. 40773, 40785 & 40788 of 2025
W.M.P.Nos.45663, 45664, 45679, 45681, 45690 & 45691 of 2025

OCTOBER 28, 2025

Ms. Sushmitha.S for the Petitioner. TNC. Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Mr.TNC.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, all the three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order at the time of admission itself.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the following assessment orders.

Sl.Nos.	W.P.Nos.	Assessment Years	Date of Assessment Orders (passed under Section of CGST/TNGST Act)
1	W.P.No.40773 of 2025	2017-18	03.02.2025 (74)
2	WP.No.40785 of 2025	2018-19	30.04.2025(73)
3	WP.No.40788 of 2025	2017-18	03.02.2025(74)

5. The petitioner has attempted to assail the same, both under Section 161 of the respective GST enactments by filing rectification applications, as well as by filing appeals before the Appellate Authority. The details of the respective Assessment Orders and the rectification applications filed are captured in the table below:

W.P.Nos.	Date of Rectification Application filed	Date of Rejection of Rectification Application	Date of Appeal filed in Form GST APL-01	Date of Appeal rejection in Form GST APL-02
WP.No.40773 of 2025	08.02.2025	12.03.2025	11.09.2025	17.09.2025
W.P.No.40785 of 2025	NIL	NIL	28.08.2024	23.03.2025
W.P.No.40788 of 2025	17.02.2025	12.03.2025	11.09.2025	17.09.2025

6. A reading of the above table indicates that the petitioner had approached the Appellate authority against the Assessment Orders dated 03.02.2025 in W.P. Nos. 40773 and 40778 of 2025, after unsuccessfully invoking jurisdiction under Section 161 of the respective GST Enactments.

7. The appeals were filed beyond the condonable period of limitation, which came to be rejected on 17.09.2025 under two separate orders.

8. Under similar circumstances, this Court has intervened and disposed of writ petitions by restoring appeals before the Appellate Authority, subject to the assessee depositing 25% of the disputed tax.

9. It is admitted that the petitioner has not deposited any amount so far, though the petitioner had filed appeals on 11.09.2025 against the respective assessment orders dated 03.02.2025.

10. Under these circumstances, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for the Appellate authority to entertain the appeals and to dispose of the same on merits.

11. As far as the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 (W.P.No.40785 of 2025) is concerned, the petitioner had filed the appeal initially on 28.08.2024 without pre-deposit, and therefore the Appellate Authority, by order dated 23.03.2025, rejected the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another appeal on 16.09.2025, which was rejected on 25.09.2025 as the appeal was time barred.

12. The law on the subject is well-settled that an appeal without the mandatory pre-deposit is not an appeal in the eye of law. Therefore, the rejection of the appeal at the first instance by the Appellate Authority on 23.03.2025 is strictly in accordance with the settled legal position. Likewise, rejection of the subsequent appeal filed on 16.09.2025 as time-barred is also correct and in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. CCE [2008] 12 STT 21 (SC)/(2008) 3 SCC 70 and in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P.) Ltd. 2009 (236) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.)/(2009) 5 SCC 791 and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. (SC)/2020 SCC Online SC 440.

13. Since the earlier appeal filed on 28.08.2024 came to be dismissed on 23.03.2025 and was not an appeal in the eye of law, the bar of res judicata would not apply to the second appeal filed on 16.09.2025. However, as the second appeal has been filed beyond the condonable period of limitation, the petitioner would not be able to seek restoration of the same, unless conditions are imposed.

14. Therefore, taking note of the submissions and the fact that the petitioner seeks to contest the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to restore the appeal before the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the Petitioner’s Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 1^st Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, if any attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner shall also stand automatically raised/vacated.

16. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the 1^st Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.

17. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the 1^st Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.

18. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.