Appellate Tribunal Exercises Statutory Discretion to Refuse

Appellate Tribunal Exercises Statutory Discretion to Refuse Admission for Appeals Where Monetary Value Does Not Exceed Fifty Thousand Rupees

Issue

Whether the Appellate Tribunal should exercise its statutory discretion under Section 112 to refuse admission of an appeal filed by an individual where the total penalty determined does not exceed ₹50,000.

Facts

Impugned Order: The appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Penalty Upheld: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the tax demand and penalty imposed on M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd., as well as the penalty imposed on the appellant in his capacity as the Managing Director of two units of the company.
Monetary Threshold: In respect of the individual appellant filing the instant appeal, the total amount of penalty, fine, fee, tax, or input tax credit determined in the impugned order did not exceed ₹50,000.

Decision

Exercise of Discretion: Held that under Section 112, the Appellate Tribunal possesses statutory discretion to refuse admission of an appeal where the total amount determined does not exceed ₹50,000 [Para 7].
Refusal of Admission: Held that the discretion was appropriately exercised to refuse admission of the appeal owing to the low monetary threshold [Para 7].
Appeal Dismissed: The Tribunal refused to admit the appeal, deciding the matter in favor of the Revenue [Para 7].

Key Takeaways

Statutory Threshold Under Section 112: The Appellate Tribunal is not mandatory bound to entertain every appeal; it holds statutory discretion to decline appeals where the quantum of tax, ITC, fine, fee, or penalty is ₹50,000 or less.
Individual vs. Corporate Determination: Monetary thresholds under Section 112 are evaluated specifically qua the individual appellant and the specific amount determined against them, regardless of higher tax or penalty amounts upheld against co-appellants or corporate entities in the same order.
Administrative Efficiency: The provision aims to prevent overloading the Appellate Tribunal with small-value disputes where the cost and effort of litigation outweigh the monetary stake involved.

GOODS AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHANDIGARH BENCH

Ashwini Malhotra

Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

Jatinder Pal Singh, Judicial Member
and Pradeep Kumar Goel, Technical Member

APL/D84/CHD/2026

SEPTEMBER 22, 2026

Sandeep Sachdeva, Counsel for the Appellant.

ORDER

1. This appeal is pending for admission, in as much as the pre-deposit amount as per the proviso to sub-section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 has not been paid by the Appellant.

2. The matter was listed before this bench on 01.09.2026, “for admission (with defects)”. Sh. Sandeep Sachdeva and Ms. Samyuktha Pentyala, Ld. Advocates appeared for the Appellant over VC, as per their request for online hearing.

3. Sh. Sandeep Sachdeva, Ld. Advocate submitted that payment of pre-deposit was not required to be made in this appeal. He invited reference in this regard to the submissions filed on the portal on 14.08.2026. He submitted that the present appeal was filed against the penalty of total amount Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the Appellant under Section 122(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and did not involve any demand of tax against the Appellant. He pointed out that the show cause notices in this matter were issued to the Appellant on 30.12.2022, and at that time there was no requirement of pre-deposit of ten per cent of the penalty for filing an appeal against a penalty-only order. The said requirement was introduced in Section 112(8) only with effect from 01.10.2025, and the proceedings in this case were initiated vide the said notices dated 30.12.2022 much prior to the coming into force of the amended proviso to Section 112(8). Accordingly, he contended that the amended proviso was not applicable to the present appeal and no pre-deposit of ten per cent of the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- was payable by the Appellant.

3. The Ld. Advocate also placed reliance on the following judicial precedents cited in the case-compilation dated 31.08.2026 filed on the GSTAT portal: Reddy Veeranna Constructions (P.) Ltd v. Appeal I Commissioner 117 GST 142/112 GSTL 63 (GSTAT – HYDERABAD)/2026 (8) TMI 215 – GSTAT Hyderabad; Gaurav Jain v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone 117 GST 111/112 GSTL 254 (Delhi)/2026 (8) TMI85 – Delhi High Court; and Barjinder Singh Kohli v. Asstt. Commissioner of Revenue 228/112 GST 797/[2026] 104 GSTL 102 (Calcutta)/2025 (11) TMI 294 – Calcutta High Court.

4. Accordingly, he prayed on the Appellant’s behalf that the defect regarding pre-deposit may be removed, and the appeal be admitted for hearing on merits.

5. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh. Vide the said order-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each (total Rs. 50,000/-) imposed on the Appellant under Section 122(3) of the GGST Act, 2017 in his role and responsibility as Managing Director of two units of M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd. situated at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh & Pune, Maharashtra. Vide the said order-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also upheld the tax demanded from and penalty imposed upon M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd. However, in so far as the present appeal is concerned, the total amount of tax or input tax credit, or fine, fee or penalty determined by the impugned order-in-appeal qua the Appellant, does not exceed fifty thousand rupees.

6. Sub-section 112(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 states that any person aggrieved by an order passed against him under Section 107 or Section 108 may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within the time limit stipulated in the said sub-section. Further, sub-section 112(2) states that the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse to admit any appeal where the tax or input tax credit involved or the difference in tax or input tax credit involved or the amount of fine, fee or penalty determined by such order, does not exceed fifty thousand rupees.

7. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant as a person aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal dated 25.09.2024 passed against him under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. There is no dispute that the amount of tax or input tax credit or fine, fee or penalty determined by the said order-in-appeal against the Appellant does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. Accordingly, exercising the discretion conferred under sub-section 112(2) ibid., the present appeal is refused to be admitted. Ordered accordingly.