https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784327 The dominant issue was whether an appeal could be dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit under s.107 of the CGST Act, 2017 when the tax authorities had already recovered more than 10% of the disputed tax prior to filing. The HC held that the statutory pre-deposit requirement stood satisfied because the excess recovery, though made under an order later dropped, existed on the appeal date; consequently, the appellate authority could not insist on any further deposit and had to hear the appeal on merits. Applying s.107(7), the HC directed refund of the amount recovered in excess of 10% after verification within four weeks and remanded the appeal for decision on merits. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784327 The dominant issue was whether an appeal could be dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit under s.107 of the CGST Act, 2017 when the tax authorities had already recovered more than 10% of the disputed tax prior to filing. The HC held that the statutory pre-deposit requirement stood satisfied because the excess recovery, though made under an order later dropped, existed on the appeal date; consequently, the appellate authority could not insist on any further deposit and had to hear the appeal on merits. Applying s.107(7), the HC directed refund of the amount recovered in excess of 10% after verification within four weeks and remanded the appeal for decision on merits. Case-Laws GST Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784327