Appeal Rejected for Non-Payment of Pre-Deposit Set Aside: Bombay High Court Revives Appeal in Rs 10.27 Crore GST Demand Case.

Taxonation | 16 Apr, 2026

6075 Views

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a statutory body constituted under the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965, was subjected to a demand of ?10.27 crore through an order dated 25 November 2024 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act. However, this order was not properly served or uploaded on the GST portal.

Due to this, the petitioner faced difficulty in filing an appeal and informed the Appellate Authority about the issue on 27 March 2025. Despite the challenges, the petitioner proceeded to file an appeal on 28 March 2025. Multiple requests were made to the authorities to upload the order on the portal, including reminders.

However, the Appellate Authority, by order dated 27 June 2025, rejected the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit.

Grounds of the Writ Petition

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking:

Quashing of the appellate order dated 27 June 2025.
A direction restraining the authorities from enforcing the impugned order.
Interim protection against any coercive action.

The key grounds included:

Non-service and non-uploading of the original order, violating principles of natural justice.
Technical difficulties in filing the appeal.
Denial of the right to be heard on merits due to procedural lapses.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

It is a statutory body performing public functions and should not be denied justice on technical grounds.
The failure to make the pre-deposit was not intentional but due to genuine difficulties arising from non-availability of the order on the portal.
The petitioner expressed readiness and willingness to deposit the required pre-deposit to enable adjudication of the appeal on merits.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondents relied on the statutory requirement of mandatory pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal and justified the rejection of the appeal on this ground.

Court’s Observations and Order

The petitioner is a statutory body engaged in public functions.
Procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice, especially when the petitioner is willing to comply with requirements.
Set aside the appellate order dated 27 June 2025.
Allowed the petitioner to make the pre-deposit within three weeks.
Directed restoration of the appeal before the Appellate Authority upon such deposit.
Ordered that the appeal be heard on merits without objection on limitation.
Kept all contentions of both parties open.