M/S Ashirwad Food Industries, Through One Of Its Partners Purshottam Das Mandani vs. Union Of INDIA Through Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court found substance in the petitioner's contention regarding pre-deposit. Considering the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 23.85 lakhs at the first appellate stage, the Court held that there would be no question of making any further pre-deposit for instituting an appeal against the impugned order dated 30.06.2025. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the Tribunal should decide the appeal on its merits without considering the issue of limitation. This leniency was granted because the petitioner was bona fide pursuing the matter before the High Court, and the Tribunal's non-functionality was a valid reason for the delay. If the system did not accept the appeal within four weeks, physical filing was permitted, and the Tribunal was directed to accept it without insisting on fresh pre-deposit. All contentions on merits were left open for the Tribunal to decide.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ashirwad Food Industries, challenged an Order-in-Appeal No. 227-232/CGST/RAN/2025 dated 30.06.2025, passed by the Commissioner, CGST. This order confirmed a demand raised in Order-in-Original No. 138/GST/ADC/RAN/2024-25 dated 04.02.2025, along with interest and penalty. The original demand was approximately Rs. 2.38 crores, which was scaled down to approximately Rs. 40,00,000/- by the first appellate authority. The petitioner had already made a pre-deposit of Rs. 23,85,182/- at the first appellate stage. The petitioner invoked the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction due to the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) not being fully functional.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be required to make any further pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, given the substantial pre-deposit already made at the first appellate stage and the scaled-down demand. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that having already deposited Rs. 23,85,182/- at the first appellate stage, which was against an original demand of approximately Rs. 2.38 crores, and with the current demand being around Rs. 40,00,000/-, a further pre-deposit of 20% (approximately Rs. 8,00,000/-) should not be insisted upon. They relied on the principle that substantial deposits have already been made. Respondents' contention: The respondents submitted that while the Appellate Tribunal is not fully functional, e-filing is permitted, and some members have been appointed. They noted that if a pre-deposit of 20% is made, coercive measures are not initiated. They referred to a provisional acknowledgment for a departmental appeal dated 28.01.2026 as evidence of the Tribunal's partial functionality.