Mandatory Pre-Deposit For Appeals In Indirect Tax Laws: A Barrier To Justice?

Mandatory pre-deposit in indirect tax laws, introduced to ensure uniformity and streamline the appellate process, has evolved into a key feature of the statutory framework governing appeals. However, its application has given rise to a range of practical and legal issues, particularly in relation to its impact on taxpayers’ ability to effectively access and pursue appellate remedies within the existing system.

Introduction

The doctrine of mandatory pre-deposit operates as a threshold mechanism in Indian indirect tax adjudication, reflecting a legislative calibration between the right of appeal and the State’s interest in revenue protection. Within the framework of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (‘Excise Act’), the Customs Act, 1962 (‘Customs Act’), and the Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) regime, the requirement of depositing a mandatory prescribed portion of the disputed tax as a condition precedent to appellate adjudication has evolved from a discretionary, equity-based safeguard to a fixed statutory mandate.

The jurisprudence in this area reflects an ongoing judicial effort to reconcile revenue protection with meaningful appellate access. Courts have been required to navigate this balance within a regime that privileges certainty over discretion, resulting in a legal framework that, while doctrinally clear, continues to pose practical challenges for taxpayers.

From Discretion to Doctrine: The Pre-2014 Regime of Conditional Waiver

Prior to 2014, the appellate framework for indirect taxes in India operated on a discretionary model that prioritised equitable relief over administrative uniformity. Under s. 35F of the Excise Act and s. 129E of the Customs Act (prior to amendment), an appellant was required to deposit the entire duty and penalty as determined by the adjudicating authority as a condition precedent for filing an appeal, in respect of orders relating to duty, interest, or penalty, including cases where the goods were not under the control of the Customs or Excise authorities. This requirement was mitigated by a statutory safeguard empowering the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT’) to waive or reduce the deposit upon a showing of undue hardship.

In practice, this framework generated structural inefficiencies. The absence of clearly delineated parameters for determining undue hardship has resulted in inconsistent adjudicatory outcomes across forums and has, in turn, given rise to a parallel stream of interlocutory litigation, particularly in the form of stay proceedings. As a result, substantial judicial time was expended on preliminary issues, diverting attention from the merits and undermining procedural efficiency.

While the underlying judicial approach sought to protect taxpayers from coercive or excessive demands that could disrupt business continuity, the unstructured exercise of discretion introduced subjectivity. This, in effect, advantaged better-resourced litigants capable of sustaining prolonged interlocutory proceedings. The cumulative inefficiencies of this regime ultimately prompted a legislative shift towards a more predictable, albeit rigid, framework of mandatory pre-deposit.

From Discretion to Mandatory Pre-Deposit- The 2014 Amendment

The enactment of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, with effect from 06.08.2014, brought about a fundamental restructuring of the indirect tax appellate framework, significantly altering the statutory scheme governing appeals and mandatory pre-deposit requirements. The substitution of s. 35F of the Excise Act and s. 129E of the Customs Act replaced the undue hardship standard with a fixed, non-discretionary percentage-based deposit.

This shift embodies the institutionalisation of the “pay now, appeal later” principle. While it promotes fiscal certainty and discourages frivolous litigation, it also raises concerns regarding access to justice. Mandatory financial thresholds may operate as a de facto barrier, particularly where the appellant lacks the capacity to comply, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the appellate remedy.

Structural Overview of the 2014 Amendments

The 2014 reform introduced a hierarchical mandatory pre-deposit structure that removed the power of appellate authorities to waive or modify the deposit amount. This legislative move was intended to secure a baseline of revenue for the State while supposedly granting the taxpayer a swifter path to a final hearing by eliminating stay applications.

S. 35F of the Excise Act, as amended, provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless the appellant deposits 7.5% of the duty, or duty and penalty, or penalty in dispute for appeals under s. 35(1) and s. 35B(1)(a), and 10% for appeals under s. 35B(1)(b). The provision prescribes a ceiling of Rs. 10 crore and excludes appeals and stay applications pending prior to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014. Similarly, s. 129E of the Customs Act mandates a pre-deposit of 7.5% for appeals under s. 128(1) and s. 129A(1)(a), and 10% for appeals under s. 129A(1)(b), subject to a ceiling of Rs. 10 crore and with the same exclusion for pending appeals and stay applications.

The Vested Rights and Initial Judicial Resistance

The transition to a mandatory pre-deposit regime generated considerable litigation centred on the vested rights. The right of appeal is recognised as a substantive statutory right, which accrues to a party when the commencement of the dispute (‘lis’) arises, which is typically marked by the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) or initiation of assessment proceedings. Though the precise point at which the lis commences is not fixed and has been variously identified by courts depending on the facts and statutory context. On this basis, it was argued that disputes arising prior to 06.08.2014 should be governed by the pre-amendment regime permitting waiver on grounds of undue hardship, and that a non-discretionary mandatory pre-deposit could not be applied to such pre-existing disputes.

This view initially found favour with several High Courts. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Rama Mohanarao & Co. v. Union of India¹, and the Kerala High Court in Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. Union of India² and Sea Breeze Courier v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax3, held that the right of appeal is governed by the law prevailing at the commencement of the lis, and that a more onerous appellate condition cannot operate retrospectively.

A divergent approach was adopted by the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India⁴, which upheld the amended s. 35F and rejected the lis based framework. The Court held that applicability is determined by the date of filing of the appeal, and that all appeals filed on or after 06.08.2014 must comply with the mandatory pre-deposit, in view of the express statutory mandate. In doing so, the Court disagreed with the reasoning in Muthoot Finance⁵, emphasising the primacy of the statutory text.

The Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India & Anr.⁶, upheld the dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with s. 129E. Rejecting the contention that the pre-amendment regime should apply on account of the underlying transaction preceding the amendment, the Court clarified that a substituted provision operates with reference to the date of filing of the appeal. It affirms the legislative shift towards a uniform, non-discretionary framework, privileging procedural certainty and revenue protection over the continuation of pre-existing discretionary safeguards.

From Application to Automaticity: The Post-2014 Deemed Stay Regime

The Central Board of Excise and Customs (‘CBEC’) issued Circular dated 16.09.2014⁷, clarifying that no coercive measures for recovery of the balance amount, i.e., the amount in excess of 7.5% or 10% deposited under s. 35F of the Excise Act or s. 129E of the Customs Act shall be taken during the pendency of the appeal, provided the assessee furnishes proof of payment of the stipulated mandatory pre-deposit and a copy of the appeal memo filed with the appellate authority.

The Circular further mandates that, if any recovery action is to be initiated, it can be done only after the case is disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal in favour of the Department, unless a superior court stays the order of the Tribunal.

This protection was subsequently reiterated through Circular dated 10.03.2017 ⁸, which reaffirms that once the mandatory pre-deposit amount is paid, no coercive action shall be taken for recovery of the balance amount during the pendency of the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT.

The Circulars categorically proscribe coercive recovery beyond the prescribed mandatory pre-deposit during the appeal window. In the case of S.J. Enterprises v. Union of India⁹, the Bombay High Court held that coercive recovery in violation of the CBEC Circular dated 16.09.2014¹⁰ is impermissible, emphasising that no recovery of the balance amount should be undertaken during the pendency of an appeal upon payment of the prescribed mandatory pre-deposit. The Court accordingly quashed such recovery actions and directed restoration of the status quo ante.

Further, in Solvay Specialities India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India¹¹, the Gujarat High Court examined recovery actions undertaken without adherence to statutory provisions and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Court held that such actions were without jurisdiction, particularly where the assessee had not been afforded a fair opportunity or where recovery was effected prematurely. Consequently, the Court directed a refund of the recovered amounts and restoration of the status quo ante, reinforcing that recovery must strictly conform to due process under the law.

Together, these circulars operate as a deemed statutory stay in favour of the assessee for the appellate proceedings, rendering any departmental appropriation of the disputed amount during such pendency per se impermissible. 

It is also a considered view that where an adjudication order has been passed and the statutory period for preferring an appeal remains open, no coercive recovery or appropriation should be undertaken by the department, as the taxpayer’s right to prefer an appeal continues to subsist during such period.

Mandatory Pre-Deposit in the GST Era

With the introduction of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(‘CGST’), on 01.07.2017, the mandatory pre-deposit requirement was further entrenched under ss. 107 and 112 of the CGST.

The mandatory pre-deposit framework under the CGST has also undergone recent rationalisation through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. Under s. 107(6), an appellant is required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax for filing the first appeal before the Appellate Authority, subject to a statutory cap which is reduced from Rs. 25 crores to Rs. 20 crores (CGST and SGST each). For second appeals before the GST Appellate Tribunal under s. 112(8), the requirement, which earlier stood at 20% of the remaining disputed tax, has been reduced to 10%, with a statutory cap of Rs. 20 crores, which earlier stood at Rs. 50 crores.

This recalibration reflects a measured attempt to balance revenue protection with ease of doing business, particularly by alleviating the financial burden on taxpayers while retaining the structural rigidity of the mandatory pre-deposit regime.

Under ss. 107(7) and 112(9) of the CGST, once the mandatory pre-deposit is satisfied and the appeal is filed, the recovery of the remaining disputed amount is deemed to be stayed by operation of law.This is a vital safeguard that protects taxpayers from coercive recovery measures.

Pre-Deposit in Penalty-Only Appeals under GST

Prior to the amendment, s. 107(6) of theCGST mandated that no appeal against an order under s. 129(3) could be filed unless the appellant deposited 25% of the penalty as a mandatory pre-deposit. In parallel, s. 112 lacked clarity on the pre-deposit requirement in penalty-only second appeals, resulting in interpretational uncertainty. This framework was widely regarded as onerous, as it imposed a significant financial burden even where the dispute was confined to penalty.

Addressing this, the GST Council in its 55th meeting recommended rationalisation. Pursuant thereto, the Finance Act, 2025, amended the proviso to s. 107(6) by substituting the earlier s. 129(3)-specific proviso with a broader proviso applicable to penalty-only orders under the CGST. Consequently, the mandatory pre-deposit requirement has been prescribed at 10%, in place of the earlier 25% requirement that was specifically applicable to proceedings under s. 129(3).

A corresponding proviso was inserted in s. 112(8), prescribing a 10% mandatory pre-deposit for second appeals, thereby resolving the earlier legislative gap. The amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2025, to s. 107(6) and s. 112(8) of the CGST was aimed at rationalising the mandatory pre-deposit framework by prescribing a 10% threshold in penalty-only appeals.

It is pertinent to note that, prior to this amendment, the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit in penalty-only matters was statutorily confined to orders passed under s. 129, where the appellant was required to deposit 25% of the penalty as a condition precedent to filing an appeal. Outside this limited category, there existed no express statutory requirement for mandatory pre-deposit in cases involving only penalty demands.

In light of the amendment, the emerging interpretation is that wherever an order imposes only a penalty, the assessee would now be required to comply with the prescribed 10% mandatory pre-deposit at both appellate stages, i.e., under ss. 107 and 112. This suggests a substantive expansion of the mandatory pre-deposit regime, extending its applicability beyond s. 129 orders to all penalty-only adjudication orders under the CGST, thereby fundamentally altering the earlier legal position.

While the amendment marks a significant corrective step, certain interpretative issues arise as to the scope and application of this relief.

First, the question arises where a single adjudication order involves multiple assessees, but the nature of liability differs among them. In such proceedings, certain noticees may face both tax demand and penalty, while others, such as transporters, intermediaries or employees, may be subjected only to penalties. In principle, the applicability of the amended proviso must be determined with reference to the liability of the individual appellant rather than the overall character of the adjudication order. The statutory language of s.107(6) links the mandatory pre-deposit requirement to the amount payable by the appellant, which indicates that the condition operates on an assessee-specific basis.

However, this raises a nuanced "food for thought" regarding derivative liability, i.e., if an appellant’s penalty is inherently anchored to the tax demand of a primary assessee, does the "penalty-only" character of their individual appeal remain legally distinct for mandatory pre-deposit purposes? One might question whether an assessee facing only a penalty can effectively decouple their procedural obligations from the primary tax demand that triggered the penalty in the first place. Interpreting the provision on an order-wise basis would arguably dilute the legislative intent to provide relief in penalty-only disputes; yet, an assessee-specific approach must still grapple with the fact that, in many instances, the penalty is not a standalone liability but a mathematical and legal shadow of the primary tax demand.

Second, the amendment raises a question regarding its temporal applicability to ongoing investigations or adjudication proceedings that commenced prior to the amendment. In tax jurisprudence, the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit is generally regarded as a procedural condition governing the maintainability of an appeal, and therefore it ordinarily operates with reference to the date of filing of the appeal rather than the date of initiation of investigation or adjudication. On this reasoning, appeals filed after the amendment comes into force should be governed by the revised mandatory pre-deposit requirement even if the underlying proceedings began earlier. However, courts have also emphasised that conditions affecting the statutory right of appeal cannot be retrospectively imposed where no such requirement existed at the time of filing the appeal.

Administrative and Structural Issues in Tax Adjudication

The introduction of mandatory pre-deposit under the indirect tax laws has significantly constrained the ability of appellants to seek justice, creating numerous challenges in the appellate process. Although the provisions for mandatory pre-deposit were added to prevent frivolous appeals and ensure revenue interest, the rigid application impacts small businesses and individuals disproportionately. This mandatory requirement places an enormous financial burden on individuals and businesses, which sometimes leads to the appellant either forgoing their right to appeal or diverting crucial working capital, thereby hampering business operations. Some of the issues are highlighted below:

Restriction on the Right to Appeal

The mandatory pre-deposit requirement affects the right to appeal significantly, rendering it a privilege rather than a guaranteed legal remedy. The strict requirement of the mandatory pre-deposit amount for filing an appeal often renders the appellant discouraged from contesting arbitrary and erroneous tax demands or penalties. It is apposite to note that many adjudication orders suffer from serious flaws, including violation of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of personal hearing or cross-examination, procedural irregularities, and excessive penalties. The tax demand and penalty vide this adjudication order are often inflated in the SCN itself, which are mechanically confirmed by the adjudicating authorities. However, instead of having a sound redressal mechanism for challenging these orders, the mandatory pre-deposit requirements imposed another hurdle for the appellants, making it inaccessible for some as well.

Financial Hardship for smaller businesses and individuals

The financial burden of mandatory pre-deposit impacts small businesses and financially distressed taxpayers disproportionately. Unlike large corporations with strong cash flows, these smaller entities and individuals often struggle to arrange funds for the inflated demand raised via the adjudication orders. It is often the case that many taxpayers are adversely impacted by these unfair demands and must either submit to the demand or engage in a lengthy appellate process that requires a significant upfront deposit.

Coercive tool for Revenue collection

The mandatory pre-deposit requirement often acts as a coercive tool for revenue collection rather than a genuine safeguard against frivolous litigation. The tax authorities create a financial burden by requiring appellants to deposit a part of the disputed amount before an appeal is even heard. Further, since there is an inherent incentive to issue inflated or aggressive tax demands for the revenue authorities, this shifts the balance of power unfairly in favour of the tax department and undermines the fundamental principle that appeals should serve to correct errors, not as a revenue-maximising approach.

Delays and Challenges in the Refund of Mandatory Pre-Deposit

Appellants have another difficulty, i.e., the refund of the mandatory pre-deposit after the appeals is successful and the adjudication order is overturned. The process of obtaining the refund is a cumbersome and bureaucratic process and is fraught with delays requiring multiple follow-ups and compliance with complex procedural requirements.

Lack of discretion compared to the Direct Tax Laws

Under the direct tax provisions, it is within the discretion of the appellate authorities to waive or stay the tax demand or penalty based on the financial condition of the taxpayer. This ensured that taxpayers facing genuine financial hardship are not forced to make immediate payments for challenging the order through the appellate process. However, the indirect tax laws leave no room for discretion on the appellate authorities, and to even go before the appellate authorities, a mandatory pre-deposit amount must be made, irrespective of the tax demand being excessive or arbitrary. This lack of flexibility and contrast between the direct and indirect tax laws shows the disregard for the genuine hardship conditions faced by the appellants, thereby causing an unfair burden on the taxpayers.

Pre-emptive Recovery and the Jurisdictional Overreach

The post-2014 framework embodies a calibrated appellate structure wherein a mandatory pre-deposit functions as a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of appeal, while the recovery of the balance demand remains, by necessary implication, in abeyance.

This equilibrium stands disrupted where the Department proceeds to appropriate the entire demand or penalty prior to the filing of an appeal under s. 107 of the CGST or s. 128 Customs Act, or within the statutory appeal period itself. Such action effectively renders the appellate remedy illusory and constitutes a clear jurisdictional overreach, defeating the legislative design. The mandatory pre-deposit requirement is intended to regulate access to appellate fora, not to legitimise premature enforcement. In substance, pre-emptive recovery subverts the statutory scheme, converting a structured mandatory pre-deposit regime into an instrument of enforcement, contrary to its intended purpose.

Alternative Remedies to Mandatory Pre-deposit

The taxpayers approach the High Court through Writ Petitions due to the financial burden. Writ jurisdiction is often invoked in cases where the tax demand is arbitrary, excessive, or violative of natural justice, which includes the situations where the adjudicating authority passes a non-speaking order, denies a personal hearing, or issues a tax demand based on flawed investigations.

The maintainability of writ petitions is still a crucial concern, though, because High Courts usually do not interfere in cases where there is an appellate process in place. The High Courts have consistently maintained that writ jurisdiction should only be used in extraordinary circumstances, including violations of natural justice principles, basic rights, or jurisdictional errors. The lack of discretion in mandatory pre-deposit obligations under indirect tax rules, however, continues to drive numerous taxpayers to the High Courts, adding to the judiciary’s workload. The procedure for taxpayers seeking relief is made more difficult by the excessive litigation at the writ stage, which not only clogs the system but also delays dispute settlement.

Writ petitions are not a replacement for an effective appellate system, even though they offer an alternate remedy in extraordinary circumstances. A more balanced strategy might cut down on needless litigation and guarantee that all taxpayers have access to justice, such as giving appellate authorities the authority to waive mandatory pre-deposit in legitimate instances ¹².

Waiver of Mandatory Pre-Deposit requirements

In the opinion of the author, the mandatory pre-deposit requirements should not be strictly enforced in situations where the adjudication order appears to have been erroneous or when natural justice principles have been violated. The appellants should not be forced to fulfil a financial obligation of mandatory pre-deposit before appealing an order that is clearly flawed or procedurally defective. Frequently, adjudicating authorities fail to give the assessee a fair hearing and issue disproportionate penalties without any reasoning or automatically confirm tax demands without proper reasoning. Mandatory pre-deposit should not be used to enforce orders that violate due process by denying a personal hearing, cross-examination of a witness, or a non-speaking order with ambiguous findings.

The imposition on the appellants to deposit a portion of an erroneous and arbitrary tax demand before challenging it is not only unreasonable but a denial of access to justice and emboldens the tax authorities to issue orders and SCN without any due diligence. The appellate forums should have discretion to a certain extent to dispose of this mandatory pre-deposit requirement for cases of genuine hardship to ensure that no one is denied access to a fair opportunity of hearing.¹³ This is recognised by High Courts at various instances, where the court intervened to grant relief as well. Some of the decisions are extracted hereunder:

In the case of Shubh Impex v. Union of India and Ors¹⁴, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had waived the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under s. 129E of the Customs Act on the ground of financial hardship faced by the Petitioner, and observed that the condition and requirement of making a mandatory pre-deposit would not be appropriate and correct owing to the financial condition and background of the Petitioner, who would suffer financial breakdown and irreparable harm.

Similarly, in the case of Manoj Kumr Jha v. DRI¹⁵, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court relaxed the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under s. 129E of the Customs Act on the ground that the Petitioner was a man of limited means, rendering him unable to pay the penalty amount. The court emphasised the importance of the appeal to be heard on the merits and held that the mandatory pre-deposit requirement should be waived in such circumstances.

Further, in the case of Bharat Ingots and Steel Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India¹⁶, the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand had held that the High Courts have the power to exercise Writ jurisdiction to waive the mandatory pre-deposit requirement in extreme cases, relying on the findings of the coordinate bench of this court in the case of Satya Nand Jha v. Union of India¹⁷.

In the case of Rajesh Tanwar v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi West¹⁸, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that amounts deposited during the course of investigation and already lying with the GST Department can be adjusted towards the statutory mandatory pre-deposit requirement under s. 107(6) of the CGST. The Court recognised that the object of mandatory pre-deposit is to secure the interests of revenue and not to mandate duplicative payments, and therefore, once sufficient funds are available with the Department, no separate pre-deposit can be insisted upon.

In the case of Vinod Metal v. State of Maharashtra¹⁹, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that voluntary deposits made under s. 73(5), even prior to the issuance of a demand, must be considered for the purposes of compliance with s. 107(6) of the CGST. The Court reasoned that such deposits are not made pursuant to any adjudicated liability and remain subject to the assessee’s contentions. It further emphasised that procedural requirements cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats the substantive right of appeal.

In the case of Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF v. State of Maharashtra²⁰, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relying on Vinod Metal, held that amounts deposited “under protest” prior to the issuance of a demand are liable to be treated as valid pre-deposit under s. 107(6). The Court clarified that the relevant consideration is the nature and timing of the deposit, and not the provision under which the subsequent demand is raised, and that such deposits cannot be excluded when determining compliance with mandatory pre-deposit requirements.

In the case of Rasidul Hoque v. State of Assam²¹, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held that where sufficient funds are already lying frozen or under the control of the Department, the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit under s. 107(6) cannot be enforced in a rigid manner so as to defeat the right of appeal. The Court directed that appeals be entertained without further deposit where the amounts already available with the Department satisfy the statutory requirement, while permitting additional deposit only in case of any shortfall.

From a bare reading of these decisions, it can be comprehended that a more flexible approach is required to prevent the misuse of the mandatory pre-deposit requirements and uphold the principles of fairness in tax litigation. The appellate authorities, if granted this discretion of waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement, would not only pave the way for effective resolution in tax matters but also ensure that a fair opportunity of hearing is provided and that natural justice principles are preserved. This will also save the time of the judiciary from dealing with writs pertaining to inaccessible appellate forums under indirect tax laws due to financial hardships.

Conclusion

The mandatory pre-deposit requirement, while intended to deter frivolous appeals and expedite the tax recovery process, has rather institutionalised significant barriers to justice for taxpayers. The imposition of the financial burden of mandatory pre-deposit upfront for filing an appeal affects small businesses and financially strained individuals disproportionately. Furthermore, the lack of discretionary powers with the appellate authority in waiving the mandatory pre-deposit even in cases of procedural lapses, jurisdictional errors, or violation of natural justice undermines the very purpose of the appellate mechanism. The tax authorities, instead of ensuring fairness, often act as a coercive tool for revenue collection by forcing taxpayers to comply with excessive demands rather than contest them.

A balanced approach is required in tax litigation by making the mandatory pre-deposit requirements flexible enough to ensure that undue burden is not forced on genuine hardship cases. The reforming of the mandatory pre-deposit requirements would require the discretionary power of the appellate authorities, similar to the discretion under income tax. This would ensure that meritorious appeals are without financial hardship, acting as a deterrent, and taking away the right to appeal of the taxpayers. Additionally, it is also recommended to adopt a case-specific approach, wherein pre-deposit is only mandatory in cases where the adjudication order is well-reasoned. This change would not only reduce unnecessary litigation in higher courts but also enhance the confidence of the taxpayers in the fairness of tax proceedings, at the same time ensuring the main objective of the amendment of the pre-deposit provision, i.e., to discourage frivolous appeals and safeguard government revenue.

Footnotes

1 K. Rama Mohanarao & Co. vs. Union of India [2015] 56 taxmann.com 123 (Andhra Pradesh)/[2015] 50 GST 575 (Andhra Pradesh)/[2015] 321 ELT 195 (Andhra Pradesh)[19-02-2015]

2 Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. Union of India (2016) SCC OnLine Ker 23245

3 Sea Breeze Courier v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax [2015 (57) taxmann.com 129 (Kerala)]

4 Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India (2016) 88 VST 98: 2015 SCC OnLine All 9174: (2015) 320 ELT 711

5 Supra iii

6 Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India & Anr (2022) 14 Supreme Court Cases 152: (2022) 20 GSTR-OL 140: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 269

7 Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014

8 Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017

9 S.J. Enterprises v. Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1620)

10 Supra VII

11 Solvay Specialities India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013 SCC OnLine Guj 5309)

12 Seema Zacharia, Would Mandatory Pre-Deposit Reduce Litigation?, [2015] 53 Taxmann.com 124 (23.12.2014).

13 G. Jayaprakash, Sufficient Cause to Condone Delay Includes Financial Difficulty to Make Mandatory Pre-Deposit, 2021 (377) E.L.T. A116.

14 Shubh Impex v. Union of India and Ors (2018 ) SCC OnLine Del 8793

15 Manoj Kumr Jha v. DRI (2018) SCC OnLine Del 13594

16 Bharat Ingots and Steel Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) 4 Centax 334 (Jhar.)

17 Satya Nand Jha v. Union of India (2016) SCC Online Jhar 2323

18 Rajesh Tanwar v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi West (2025) SCC OnLine Del 10272

19 Vinod Metal v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2009 : (2023) 77 GSTL 520

20 Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF v. State of Maharashtra [2024] 161 taxmann.com 610 (Bombay)[04-12-2023]

21 Rasidul Hoque v. State of Assam [2024] 168 taxmann.com 163 (Gauhati)[18-09-2024]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.