Rejection of Belated GST Appeal Set Aside to Grant Opportunity for Paying Deficit Pre-Deposit Under Amnesty Scheme

By | September 21, 2026
0 Comment

Rejection of Belated GST Appeal Set Aside to Grant Opportunity for Paying Deficit Pre-Deposit Under Amnesty Scheme

Rejection of Belated GST Appeal Set Aside to Grant Opportunity for Paying Deficit Pre-Deposit Under Amnesty Scheme
Issue
Whether an appellate authority can reject a belated appeal as time-barred under Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax without considering the taxpayer’s eligibility under the amnesty notification or granting an opportunity to cure the pre-deposit defect by remitting the additional 2.5% payment.
Facts
  • Amnesty Notification Invoked: The petitioner filed an appeal against an assessment order under Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, which permitted belated appeals for assessment orders passed up to January 31, 2023, subject to paying an additional 2.5% pre-deposit (over and above 10%) and filing by January 31, 2024.
  • Deficit Pre-Deposit at Filing: The petitioner did not pay the additional 2.5% pre-deposit at the time of filing the appeal, though it was remitted subsequently.
  • Summary Rejection: The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time-barred without examining the petitioner’s eligibility under the amnesty notification or granting an opportunity to cure the payment defect.
  • Writ Petition Filed: The petitioner assailed the appellate rejection order before the High Court seeking restoration of the appeal.
Decision
  • Failure to Consider Amnesty Eligibility: The court held that the Appellate Authority failed to evaluate the petitioner’s entitlement to benefit from Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax.
  • Non-Payment Is a Curable Defect: The court ruled that non-payment of the additional 2.5% pre-deposit at the exact time of filing constituted a curable defect rather than a fatal jurisdictional bar.
  • Opportunity Must Be Granted: The Appellate Authority ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect and demonstrate compliance with the amnesty notification.
  • Order Quashed and Appeal Restored: The rejection order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Appellate Authority for fresh orders after verifying the petitioner’s eligibility under the notification in favor of the assessee.
Key Takeaways
  • Curability of Pre-Deposit Shortfalls: Failure to pay the complete pre-deposit at the time of appeal filing is a curable procedural defect; appellate forums must allow taxpayers an opportunity to rectify the deficit.
  • Duty to Apply Amnesty Schemes: Appellate authorities must actively assess whether a belated appeal qualifies for benefit under statutory amnesty notifications (such as Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax) before dismissing it on grounds of limitation.
  • Principles of Natural Justice in Appeals: Dismissing an appeal summarily on procedural non-compliance without issuing a defect memo or offering time to comply violates principles of natural justice.
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Alis Super Market
v.
Joint Commissioner of State Tax
Gopinath P., J.
WP(C) NO. 30002 OF 2026
SEPTEMBER  3, 2026
Tomson T. Emmanuel, Adv. for the Petitioner. Smt. Sindhu Santhalingam, Government Pleader for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging Ext.P6 order of the appellate authority filed under Sec.107 of the CGST/SGST Acts on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond time. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.53/2023 of Central Tax dated 02.11.2023, which provided that, in respect of orders passed by the assessing authority on or before 31.01.2023, an appeal could be filed beyond the time specified by Sec.107 of the CGST/SGST Acts, provided, an additional 2.5% of the disputed tax was paid over and above the 10% of mandatory pre-deposit of the disputed tax and if such appeal so filed before 31.01.2024. It is submitted that, though the petitioner did not remit the additional 2.5% of the disputed tax at the time of the filing the appeal, the petitioner has, by now remitted the said amount also, as can be seen from Ext.P7. It is submitted that, had an opportunity being granted to the petitioner, he would have remitted the additional 2.5% to claim the benefit of Ext.P2 notification.
2. The learned Government pleader seeks time to get instructions.
3. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not deem it necessary to adjourn this writ petition to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions, as it appears from reading of Ext.P6 that the appellate authority has not considered whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Ext.P2 notification. In my view, the appellate authority should have given, an opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefits of Ext.P2 notification and if he had found the petitioner had notj paid the additional 2.5% of the disputed tax which was required to be paid to claim the benefit of Ext.P2 notification, such opportunity should have been granted. This Court in Ext.P8 judgment has found that the failure to pay the additional 2.5% is a curable defect.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is quashed. The appeal which lead to Ext.P6 order will stand restored to the files of appellate authority, who shall pass fresh orders in the matter, after ascertaining as to whether the petitioner can be extended the benefits of Ext.P2 notification, and taking note of the observation in this judgment.