Rectification application under Section 161 of GST: appeal permitted subject to 50% deposit; appellate decision on merits follows.

Rejection of an application under Section 161 of the GST enactments was sustained, but the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue remedy before the Appellate Authority provided the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax in cash from the electronic cash register within thirty days; upon such deposit the Appellate Authority must decide the appeal on merits notwithstanding limitation. Compliance will automatically vacate attachment of the petitioners bank account and all recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance pending final order. Petition disposed accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 and the rejection of the rectification application under Section 161 warrant interference; (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief and vacation of bank attachment pending appeal and on what terms.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 and the order rejecting the rectification application dated 30.07.2025 under Section 161 can be set aside.

Analysis: The record shows non-response to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 24.01.2024 and confirmation of demand in the impugned order dated 24.04.2024. Procedural compliance by the respondent under the GST enactments has been recorded. The rectification application filed on 25.03.2025 under Section 161 was considered and rejected by order dated 30.07.2025.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated 24.04.2024 and the rejection of the rectification application dated 30.07.2025 do not warrant interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner may pursue remedy before the Appellate Authority and obtain vacation of bank attachment pending appeal, and on what conditions.

Analysis: Liberty to approach the Appellate Authority is granted subject to depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within thirty days. Compliance with this condition will permit the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits without reference to limitation; attachment of the petitioner's bank account will be vacated and recovery proceedings kept in abeyance while the condition is met. Failure to comply permits the respondent to proceed as if the writ petition were dismissed in limine.

Conclusion: The petitioner is permitted to file appeal subject to depositing 50% of the disputed tax within thirty days; on such deposit the bank attachment will be vacated, recovery proceedings stayed, and the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits without reference to limitation. Non-compliance permits normal recovery action.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by refusing substantive interference with the impugned orders while granting conditional liberty to prefer an appeal subject to specified deposit and compliance, with consequential interim reliefs conditional on that compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer has not replied to a Show Cause Notice and the authority has complied with procedural requirements, interference is not warranted; conditional interim relief including vacation of attachments may be granted on deposit of a specified proportion of the disputed tax to enable adjudication on merits by the Appellate Authority.

---