V.R. Minerals, Through Its Partner Paresh Ghosal vs. Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, Through Its Principal Commissioner

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the Appellate Authority's order dated 28.11.2025, thereby restoring the petitioner's Appeal No. 914/CGST/RAN/2025 to the file of the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was directed to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit within three weeks from the date of uploading of the order. If this condition was met, the Appellate Authority was to proceed with the disposal of the petitioner's appeal on its merits. However, if the petitioner failed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement within the stipulated timeline, the writ petition would be deemed to have been dismissed without further reference to the Court. The Court appreciated the fairness of the respondents' counsel. The ratio is that while procedural lapses can lead to dismissal, courts may grant indulgence for rectification of defaults, especially in offline filing scenarios, provided there is a clear undertaking and a consequence for non-compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, V.R. Minerals, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority. This order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order in original dated 06.12.2023. The dismissal was due to the petitioner's failure to make the mandatory 10% pre-deposit as required by law. The petitioner's counsel argued that the appeal was filed offline, and thus, the petitioner was not informed of the default or given an opportunity to rectify it. The petitioner sought an additional opportunity to make the pre-deposit and have their appeal restored. The respondents did not object, subject to a clarification that the appeal would stand dismissed if the pre-deposit was not made within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an additional opportunity to make the 10% pre-deposit and have their appeal restored, considering the appeal was filed offline and they were allegedly not notified of the default or given an opportunity to rectify it, as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant rules. Petitioner's Arguments: - The appeal was filed offline, leading to a lack of intimation regarding the default in pre-deposit and no opportunity to correct it. - The impugned appellate order was passed without hearing the petitioner. - The petitioner seeks a three-week period to make the pre-deposit and restore Appeal No. 914/CGST/RAN/2025. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents do not object to the petitioner's request, provided the Court clarifies that the appeal will stand dismissed if the pre-deposit is not made within three weeks. - The respondents rely on previous orders of the Court in W.P. (T) Nos. 4717 of 2022 & 1524 of 2021 where similar indulgence was granted.