Case Details: Dharun vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Appeal), Erode (2026) 41 Centax 424 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- S/Shri S. Ramamurthy & R. Premchandar, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Anitha Poonkodi Dinakaran, Govt. Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority against assessment orders passed pursuant to an earlier remand order of the High Court directing de novo adjudication, subject to the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax. The petitioner complied with the deposit condition, and the amount was adjusted while passing the subsequent assessment orders. However, due to changes in the GST portal architecture, the earlier pre-deposit could not be reflected or treated as a statutory pre-deposit for the purpose of filing appeals under Section 107. The petitioner thereafter relied upon the appeal manual requiring approval from the Appellate Authority for the deposit of a lower percentage and sought consideration of its request. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner’s request in light of the appeal manual applicable on the GST portal, which mandated approval from the Appellate Authority for the deposit of a lower percentage of the amount. It further directed that while considering the request, the authority shall also take into account the decision of the Supreme Court in VVF (India) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 4 Centax 421 (S.C.) = 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 444 (S.C.). Accordingly, the Appellate Authority was directed to complete the exercise expeditiously.
List of Cases Cited
- S.S. Traders v. Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence) — (2024) 24 Centax 176 (Mad.) = 2025 (92) G.S.T.L. 196 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 4]
- VVF (India) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra — (2023) 4 Centax 421 (S.C.) = 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 444 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 9]
