Inadvertent errors and minor procedural lapses are curable in nature.

The fact that till 09/10/2026, several benches of the GSTAT have disposed 361 cases is encouraging. These decisions are binding on all tax officers all over India, as there is no distinction in CGST/SGST laws and both are identical. One interesting issue came before the Raipur Bench of GSTAT on 09/10/2026. As this is a complex issue involving compliance, the case is next listed for hearing on 17/12/2026 for final hearing. As I found some interesting as well as valid observations made by the bench, which are applicable in identical circumstances, I thought it appropriate to share the case in taxtmi.com so as to create awareness for all the stakeholders.

M/s. D and Sons Motors Private Limited were issued with DRC 07 on 12/12/2023. The case was adjudicated and OIO was passed. Aggrieved by the above order, the taxpayer filed the first appeal which stood rejected on 16/12/2024. As the GSTAT was not functional at that time, the taxpayer preferred a writ before the jurisdictional high court. The High Court has stayed all the recovery proceedings and suggested to file the second appeal against the OIA before GSTAT as and when it becomes possible to file such appeal. The taxpayer filed the appeal before Raipur bench and the matter was partly heard on 09/10/2026. The core issue for consideration was whether an appeal could be filed without payment of 100 % of the UNDISPUTED ( admitted tax) portion of the GST. It is only during the time when the matter was under active consideration before the bench, the respondent raised the contention that they have not paid portion of the admitted tax. The taxpayer, upon noticing such deficiency, immediately paid the tax, interest amount in full which was even more than the tax and produced copy of DRC 03 and DRC 03A and the taxes stood credited appropriately showing full payment.

The question was asked as to why the tax payment was not made before filing the first appeal. It appears that the first appellate authority has not noticed this deficiency at all and simply rejected the appeal quoting limitation. The taxpayer admitted that it was an error and it is cured now. The question before the GSTAT was whether the defect was curable in nature and the appeal before Tribunal could be admitted or rejected. This aspect was examined by reference to several case laws and the GSTAT concluded based on several judgements on identical circumstances and decided that the defects are curable in nature and the compliance date on which such error is cured is the date of filing of the second appeal. In the instant case, luckily, 30/06/2026 was the due date for filing, whereas the same got extended to 31/07/2026. The defects were fully cured on 24/09/2026. Thus, the second appeal was deemed to have been filed as on 24/09/2026. The tribunal took the stand that the delay of 55 days is withing the powers of GSTAT for condonation as they have three months to condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted and the final hearing is posted in December 2026.

The operative portion of the Tribunal order reads as "38. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that:

(i) payment in full of the admitted liability under Section 112(8)(a) is a mandatory condition for filing an appeal, which this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive;

(ii) the earlier presentation and registration of the memorandum of appeal did not constitute compliance with that statutory requirement;

(iii) applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalta Prasad Khinni Lal (supra), the appeal became duly filed in law on 24.09.2026, upon complete discharge of the admitted liability;

(iv) the resulting delay falls within the further period prescribed under Section 112(6), during which this Tribunal is empowered to admit an appeal upon sufficient cause being shown;

(v) having regard to the facts and circumstances recorded hereinabove, sufficient cause has been established for condonation of the resulting delay under Section 112(6); and

(vi) the earlier non-compliance with Section 107(6)(a), though contrary to a mandatory statutory requirement, has not been shown to render the subsisting Order-in-Appeal non- existent or void ab initio. No memorandum of cross-objections has been filed by the respondent seeking annulment or modification of that order on such ground".

Conclusion: Clause a of sub-section 6 of section 107 of the CGST Act provides for payment of tax, interest and penalty in full which is admitted by the taxpayer before preferring the first appeal. Though the quantum of admitted portion may be small as compared with disputed portion, the requirement was not fulfilled due to error. Ideally, this should have been pointed out as a deficiency by the first appellate authority but that did not happen. It is only before the Tribunal that the respondent brought this deficiency, which the taxpayer cured immediately. The task could have been much simpler for the GSTAT by rejection due to non -compliance of required procedures. However, in the interest of justice, the bench examined this aspect in great length and arrived at the conclusion as above.

Before parting: This is the last and final call to all the taxpayers to have a review of all the orders passed by the first appellate authority as the GSTAT is there to render the justice now.

The following table may be referred to understand that each and every day from 11/10/2026 till 25/10/2026 are highly crucial, in case any second appeal was omitted to be filed till today.

The decision of GSTAT dated 09/10/2026 has set the road map on curable defects. It is the turn of the taxpayer and tax professional to take advantages as applicable in appropriate circumstances.