HC Restores GST Appeal: Minor Pre-Deposit Defect Under Special Scheme Held Curable:

HC Restores GST Appeal: Minor Pre-Deposit Defect Under Special Scheme Held Curable Aboobaker P.P., a registered works contractor under the KGST/CGST Act, challenged the rejection of his appeal relating to the 2021–22 assessment. After the assessment order, he failed to file an appeal within the statutory period under Section 107. Thereafter, Notification No. 53/2023 (Ext.P5) extended the time for filing appeals up to 31.01.2024. The petitioner filed his appeal on 28.11.2023 and deposited 10% of the disputed tax, which satisfies the statutory pre-deposit but not the higher 12.5% mandated by the special scheme. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on grounds of delay, prompting the present writ petition seeking restoration of the appeal and adjudication on merits. Main Issue: Whether an appeal filed within the extended time under Notification 53/2023 can be rejected solely for non-compliance with the enhanced pre-deposit requirement, without granting an opportunity to cure the defect. HC's Decision: The High Court held that although the petitioner failed to initially comply with the enhanced 12.5% pre-deposit requirement under Ext.P5, the defect was curable and should have been pointed out by the appellate authority. The Court also observed that the appeal was filed within the extended window created by the notification, and there was nothing in the scheme requiring the appellant to expressly state that the benefit of Ext.P5 was being invoked. Since the only deficiency was short payment of the pre-deposit, which was also later rectified, the appellate authority could not have summarily rejected the appeal as time-barred. The Court also observed that Ext.P4 was issued nearly two years after the appeal was filed, without giving a notice to the petitioner about the difference. The Court further noted that when a special scheme extends limitation for the benefit of aggrieved taxpayers, authorities must adopt a liberal and facilitative approach rather than shutting out appeals on technicalities.  The Court therefore exercised its powers under Article 226 to restore the appeal. Thus, Ext.P4 was quashed, and the appellate authority was directed to reinstate the appeal and then dispose it of on the merits after hearing the petitioner. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below