Facts of the Case:

The appellant challenged the order of the First Appellate Authority before the GST Appellate Tribunal after the appellate authority substantially reduced the tax demand confirmed under Section 73 of the CGST Act for excess availment of Input Tax Credit. Although the appellant had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax while filing the first appeal under Section 107, the Tribunal Registry raised an objection requiring a further pre-deposit under Section 112(8) and payment of the prescribed Tribunal fee. The appellant contended that the earlier pre-deposit exceeded the amount required on the reduced tax demand and, therefore, no additional pre-deposit was payable.

Issue:

Whether a taxpayer is required to make a fresh pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal when the pre-deposit already made under Section 107 exceeds 10% of the reduced tax demand determined by the First Appellate Authority.

Held That:

The GST Appellate Tribunal held that no further pre-deposit is required where the amount already deposited during the first appellate proceedings is more than sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 112(8) based on the reduced tax demand. Relying on the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in M/s Ashirwad Food Industries v. Union of India, the Tribunal observed that the excess pre-deposit made before the First Appellate Authority adequately covers the Tribunal’s pre-deposit requirement and insisting on another deposit would be unwarranted.

However, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the balance Tribunal court fee prescribed under Rule 110(5) of the CGST Rules and ordered that, upon verification of the earlier pre-deposit and payment of the deficient court fee, the appeal be placed before the Bench for admission.

Key takeaway – Excess pre-deposit made while filing the first appeal under Section 107 can be adjusted towards the pre-deposit required under Section 112, and the Tribunal cannot insist upon an additional deposit merely because a second appeal is filed after the tax demand has been substantially reduced.

Case Name: Manoranjan Dash Versus Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate Of CT GST & Ors. dated 08.07.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1922