Velnex Medicare vs. Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Others

223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP-21075-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.09.2026 VELNEX MEDICARE ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate with Mr. Pratyaksh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC with Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondents. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority refusing to entertain the appeal, arising out of the order passed by adjudicatory authority dated 23.11.2023 on the ground that 10 % pre-deposit for filing of appeal has not been made in terms of Section 107 (6) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. The short ground on which the order is impugned is that the entire disputed tax amount stood deposited, and therefore, the approach of the Appellate Authority requiring the petitioner to deposit a further amount of 10% was wholly un-called for. 3. Submission is that the petitioner’s appeal ought to have been heard on merits and the contrary view taken by the authority cannot be KAVNEET SINGH 2026.09.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP-21075-2025 (O & M) 2 sustained. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-revenue does not dispute the fact that entire disputed amount of tax stood deposited. 5. Once that be the position, the petitioner’s appeal could not have been dismissed only on the ground that 10 % pre-deposit has not been made. 6. The further ground taken that the copy of the order was not self-certified is also not sustainable, inasmuch as, the defect at best was curable and an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to remove such deficiency. The straightway dismissal of the appeal on this ground also cannot be sustained. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the case by