Dismissal of First Appeal on Limitation Renders Revenue’s Challenge to Pre-Deposit Misconceived and Untenable

By | November 13, 2026
0 Comment
Dismissal of First Appeal on Limitation Renders Revenue’s Challenge to Pre-Deposit Misconceived and Untenable

Issue

Whether the Revenue’s appeal alleging non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit is maintainable when the first appellate authority dismissed the assessee’s appeal solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits or contesting the furnished pre-deposit challan.

Facts

  • The assessee filed a first appeal against an adjudication order passed by the Joint Commissioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
  • The first appellate authority observed that the appeal was filed with a delay of six days beyond the prescribed three-month limitation period, and no separate condonation application had been filed.
  • Consequently, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without entering into the merits of the case.
  • The appellate order explicitly noted that the assessee had submitted a challan as proof of mandatory pre-deposit.
  • Dissatisfied with the dismissal order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, contending that there was non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit requirements.

Decision

  • Operative Status of Original Order: Because the first appeal was dismissed solely on the threshold ground of limitation without examining merits, the original adjudication order remained intact and operative.
  • Pre-Deposit Compliance Verified: The first appellate records confirmed that the assessee had indeed furnished the challan evidencing the payment of pre-deposit.
  • Revenue’s Ground Misconceived: The Revenue’s grievance regarding non-compliance with pre-deposit was completely misconceived, rendering their appeal before the Tribunal uncalled for.
  • Dismissal of Revenue Appeal: The impugned first appellate order suffered from no infirmity warranting judicial interference, and the Revenue’s appeal was accordingly dismissed in favour of the assessee.

KeyTakeways

  • Threshold Dismissal and Merits: When an appellate authority dismisses an appeal purely on limitation, the underlying merits and auxiliary compliance matters like pre-deposit cease to form a basis for adversarial challenge by the Revenue.
  • Verification of Pre-Deposit Records: Possession and submission of a valid pre-deposit challan satisfy pre-deposit requirements, preventing Revenue from alleging non-compliance.
  • Frivolous Litigation Bar: Appeals filed by the Revenue challenging orders that have already disposed of matters in limine without prejudice to recovery mechanisms are untenable.
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , RANCHI BENCH
Anil Kumar Jha
v.
Tata Steel Ltd.
Tushsar Kanti Satapathy, Judicial Member
and Shri Kant Kishore Mishra, Technical Member
APL/45/RNC/2026
NOVEMBER  5, 2026
Ratnesh Kumar Badiyar, Assistant Commissioner for the Appellant.
ORDER
1. The matter is taken on physical mode.
2. Heard Shri Ratnesh Kumar Badiyar, Assistant Commissioner, CGST Jamshedpur on behalf of Appellant/ Revenue.
3. The Appellant/ Revenue has filed the above appeal u/s 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 by challenging the impugned order vide OIA No. 716/CGST/JSR/2025 dated 31.10.2025 passed by the first Appellate Authority.
4. Brief Facts of the case:-
The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed appeal against the Order passed under Section 74(3) of the CGST Act vide OIO No.23/CGST/Joint Commissioner/2024 dated 02.12.2024 and the said appeal was registered vide Appeal No. 716/CGST/JSR/2025 The Respondent averred various grounds in the appeal memo. The first appellate authority before going to the merit of the case held that the Respondent ought to have filed Appeal under 107 of the CGST Act within three months from the date of communication of such decision or order as contemplated under section 107(1) of the CGST Act but in the present case there has been delay of 06 days in filing of appeal and the respondent has not filed any condonation of application for such delay. Therefore, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without entertaining in to the merit of the case.
5. The revenue reviewed the appeal by exercising power vested under section 112(3) of the CGST Act and observed that the appellate authority order is liable to be set aside as the appellant has failed to comply the mandatory condition of pre-deposit prescribed under section 107(6) of the CGST Act at the time of filing of first appeal.
6. We perused the memorandum of appeal vis-à-vis the order passed by the first appellate authority. In the first appellate authority order, it is clearly manifest in the para 5 of the order that challan bearing CPIN No. 25032000012635 dated 12.03.2025 amounting to Rs. 41,72,618/- has been submitted by the appellant as the proof of payment of pre-deposit in as much as, the appeal has been dismissed by the first appellate authority on ground of limitation and thereby the original adjudication order is operative and enforceable. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 112(3), read with Section 112(4), of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Authority is uncalled for.
7. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the grounds raised by the Revenue, and the findings recorded in the First Appellate Authority order, we find that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Tribunal.