TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the facts are that the Appellant was served with Show Cause Notice for proposing penalties under Section 122 of CGST Act, 2017, alleging that Appellant has raised fake invoices without supply of goods or services. The Adjudicating Authority has levied the penalties under Section 122 read with Section 20 of IGST Act and also under Section 125 read with Section 20 of IGST Act. The Appellant had preferred an appeal to the learned First Appellate Authority against the said order. The Ld. First Appellate Authority has dismissed their appeal upholding the original Adjudication Order. Against this Appellate Order, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. The questions before us, are whether the Appellant has rectified the defects....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utta in Barjinder Singh Kohli Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue and Others dated 03.11.2025 (2025 Taxo.online 2833) observed as under wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that : "It is evident from the above that there was no requirement for making any pre-deposit in cases where the appeal was carried against an order pertaining only to penalty and there being no amount of tax in dispute". "It is well settled that right to prefer appeal is a substantive right. It is equally settled that when a statute provides for a right to prefer appeal, it can also limit or restrict such right by imposing appropriate conditions. Requirement of pre-deposit for filing appeal under Section 107 (6) of the 2017 Act is one such conditi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh and Others on 23.02.1953 (4 STC 114) The brief case law is as under : "The right of appeal was treated as a substantive vested right that accrued when assessment proceedings commenced before the First Instance Authority. A later amendment requiring proof of payment of assessed taxes as a condition for the admission of the appeal could not curtail the right, unless the retrospective application was clearly expressed or necessarily implied. Because of the amended proviso created the substantial additional burden, it was held inapplicable to pending proceedings, and the appeal had to be admitted without insisting for proof of payment of assessed taxes". 8. The learned Counsel prayed that appeal be admitted without making any fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....full amount of admitted tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty, and 10% of remaining amount of tax in dispute as pre-deposit while preferring the appeal before the Tribunal. This amount is in addition to the pre-deposit already made under the Section 107 of the Act. Further, it was observed that proviso to Section 112(8) was effective from 01.10.2025 vide Finance Act, 2025 (Act No. 7 of 2025) dated 29.03.2025, wherein pre-deposit was prescribed in cases where issue involved is only the penalty. In the present case, it was observed that show cause notice was issued on 29.09.2022, Order in Original was issued on 28.08.2023 and impugned order (OIA) was issued on 12.01.2024. From this, it can be seen that the impugned order was issued very much b....