Aakash Gupta Vs Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribuna & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court disposed of a batch of nine writ petitions and directed the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) to permit the petitioners to file their respective appeals without insisting upon pre-deposit in cases involving penalty alone, where the underlying Show Cause Notices had been issued before the amendment introducing the pre-deposit requirement came into force on 01.10.2025.
The principal issue before the Court was whether the benefit already recognised by the Delhi High Court for first appeals in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone & Anr., W.P.(C) 8414/2026, decided on 31.07.2026, would also extend to appeals required to be filed before GSTAT. In Gaurav Jain, the Court had held that where SCNs were issued prior to 01.10.2025 in penalty matters, the subsequent amendment imposing a pre-deposit condition could not retrospectively burden the vested appellate remedy.
The High Court noted that the SCNs in the present batch had likewise been issued before the amendment introducing the pre-deposit requirement. It held that the subsequent amendment could not alter the petitioners’ right to avail the appellate remedy in proceedings already initiated before the amendment. Importantly, the Court clarified that this principle does not depend upon whether the statutory remedy is a first appeal or a second appeal before GSTAT.
The Court’s reasoning followed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 1953 SCC OnLine SC 33, concerning the vested nature of the right of appeal and the impermissibility of retrospectively imposing a more onerous condition upon that right. The earlier Gaurav Jain ruling had applied this doctrine to the amended GST pre-deposit requirement.
Accordingly, the High Court directed GSTAT to permit the petitioners to file their respective appeals without insisting upon pre-deposit in cases involving penalty alone. All nine writ petitions were disposed of, the pending applications were closed, and the Court directed that a photocopy of the order be placed in the connected matters.
Cases Discussed
- Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone & Anr., W.P.(C) 8414/2026, decided on 31.07.2026 (Delhi High Court) — Followed; held that where SCNs in penalty cases were issued before 01.10.2025, the subsequent pre-deposit amendment could not retrospectively govern the vested right of appeal.
- Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 1953 SCC OnLine SC 33 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon through Gaurav Jain for the principle that a vested right of appeal cannot be impaired by a subsequent amendment imposing a more onerous condition.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The present batch of nine (09) Writ Petitions is listed for hearing today.
2. Principally, the issue with regard to the requirement of pre-deposit in cases involving penalty is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 8414/2026, captioned Gaurav Jain and Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr., which was allowed on 31.07.2026. In the said judgment, this Court held that where the Show Cause Notices (‘SCNs’) had been issued prior to 01.10.2025, in cases involving penalty, the Appellate Authority was required to admit the appeals without insisting upon pre-deposit, as the amendment could not be applied retrospectively in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.1.
3. The only difference in the present batch of Writ Petitions is whether the same benefit would extend to appeals required to be filed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘GSTAT’).
4. In the present cases, the SCNs were issued prior to the amendment introducing the requirement of pre-deposit. The subsequent amendment requiring such pre-deposit would, therefore, not alter the right of the Petitioners to avail the appellate remedy in respect of proceedings initiated by the SCNs issued prior to the amendment. It is also not dependent upon whether the appeal is a first appeal or a second appeal.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of, while directing GSTAT to permit the Petitioners to file their respective appeals without insisting upon pre-deposit, in cases involving penalty alone.
6. With these observations, the present Writ Petitions stand disposed of. The pending applications also stand closed.
7. A photocopy of the order passed today be kept in the connected matters.
Note:
1 1953 SCC OnLine SC 33 ↩
