Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner was subjected to assessment proceedings for FY 2018–19 pursuant to a show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional authority. hereafter, an assessment order dated 26.04.2024 was passed raising tax demands; however, according to the petitioner, the said order was not uploaded on the GST portal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the appellate authority after remitting the mandatory pre-deposit. Since the assessment order was allegedly not available on the portal, the appeal was filed manually. The appeal was received and acknowledged without objection. 

However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed by order solely on the ground that it had been filed manually instead of electronically, as prescribed under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules.

Issue:

Whether an appellate authority can dismiss a GST appeal on the technical ground of manual filing, despite having accepted the appeal, received the mandatory pre-deposit, issued hearing notice, and heard the matter on merits.

Held that: 

The Court held that the impugned order rejecting the appeal on technical grounds was unsustainable. The record clearly showed that the appeal had been filed on 31.07.2024 along with the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 of the GST Act. The appellate authority neither raised any objection at the time of filing nor at any subsequent stage for more than one year and four months. On the contrary, the authority acknowledged the appeal, issued notice for hearing, and proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

The Court observed that if the manner of filing the appeal was defective, the objection ought to have been raised at the threshold stage. After having entertained the appeal and conducted a merits hearing, the appellate authority could not later dismiss the appeal solely on a procedural technicality.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits without reference to the mode of filing. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Case Name: Harsha Trading (P.) Ltd. , Hyderabad v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax dated 23.02.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 590