2026 (3) TMI 1508 - HC - GST

GST appeal pre-deposit recognition must be considered under the appeal manual and the cited Supreme Court ruling.

The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's representation seeking recognition of an amount already deposited as the pre-deposit for ... Effect of the representation seeking recognition of the amount already deposited as pre-deposit for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments - Appellate remedy - Portal-based compliance. - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an extract from the appeal manual in the GST portal, according to which the Petitioner is required to obtain approval from the competent authority. Hence, the Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 16.02.2026 in the light of the appeal filed on the same date against the de novo assessment orders dated 19.11.2025 for the respective tax periods. The Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner's representation regarding adjustment of the earlier pre-deposit for the appeals filed against the de novo assessment orders, in the light of the GST portal appeal manual and after taking into account the Supreme Court decision VVF (India) Limited [2021 (12) TMI 477 - SUPREME COURT] referred to in the order. Issues: Whether the petitioner's representation seeking recognition of the amount already deposited as pre-deposit for filing the statutory appeals through the GST portal was required to be considered by the Appellate Authority, and whether the authority should act in accordance with the portal instructions and the Supreme Court decision relied upon.Analysis: The petitioner had already complied with the earlier judicial direction to deposit 10% of the disputed tax, and the subsequent assessment orders were passed after de novo adjudication. The grievance was that, because of changes in the GST portal architecture and the appeal manual, the deposited amount was not being treated as the requisite pre-deposit for the appeals, and approval from the competent authority was being insisted upon. In that situation, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the representation in the light of the appeal manual then in force and to take into account the Supreme Court decision referred to by the petitioner.Conclusion: The representation was directed to be considered by the Appellate Authority, and the petitioner obtained a partial procedural relief.