Pre-deposit requirement for Tribunal appeals can be satisfied by earlier first appellate deposit; physical filing allowed if e filing fails.

Pre-deposit already made at the first appellate stage was treated as satisfying the Tribunal's pre-deposit requirement; consequence: no further pre-deposit is required to institute the Tribunal appeal. Where the e filing system fails to accept an appeal within four weeks, physical filing is permitted and the Tribunal must accept it without demanding a fresh pre-deposit. The High Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction because the Appellate Tribunal was not fully functional; consequence: the writ was disposed permitting filing and leaving all merits to the Tribunal. Limitation was not invoked because the petitioner bona fide pursued available remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner is required to make any further pre-deposit to institute an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, in view of an earlier pre-deposit made at the first appellate stage; (ii) Whether the Tribunal should be directed to accept and decide the appeal on merits without raising the issue of limitation or insisting on a fresh pre-deposit, and whether physical filing may be permitted if the e-filing system does not accept the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether any further pre-deposit is required.

Analysis: The petitioner had already made a substantial pre-deposit at the first appellate stage amounting to Rs. 23,85,182/-, whereas the confirmed demand in the impugned order is significantly lower after first appellate reduction (approximately Rs. 40,00,000/-). The facts show an existing substantial deposit made in relation to the dispute which the Tribunal is capable of taking into account when permitting an appeal.

Conclusion: No further pre-deposit is required; the Tribunal should not insist upon any fresh pre-deposit in order to admit the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal should accept and decide the appeal on merits without taking objection on limitation and whether physical filing may be permitted if e-filing fails.

Analysis: The petitioner sought extraordinary relief because the Appellate Tribunal was not fully functional; there is evidence that some members are appointed and e-filing is permitted but operational difficulties may persist. The petitioner undertakes to file the appeal within four weeks. Given bona fide pursuit of remedies before the Court and practical difficulties in filing, the Tribunal should not raise limitation objections or refuse admission on technical grounds; alternative physical filing should be permitted if e-filing is not operating to accept the appeal within the prescribed time.

Conclusion: If the appeal is filed within four weeks, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits without advertence to limitation; if e-filing is not accepting the appeal, the Tribunal must accept physical filing and shall not insist upon any fresh pre-deposit.

Final Conclusion: The remedy before the Tribunal is preserved and the Tribunal is directed to admit the appeal without requiring any further pre-deposit, to permit physical filing if necessary, and to decide the appeal on its merits without raising limitation objections where the appeal is filed within the specified period.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantial pre-deposit made at the first appellate stage in relation to the same demand dispenses with an obligation to make an additional pre-deposit at the Tribunal stage; where operational or bona fide obstacles prevent e-filing, physical filing must be permitted and the Tribunal should decide the appeal on merits without imposing limitation or fresh pre-deposit barriers.

---