Ashwini Malhotra Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (GSTAT Chandigarh)
Summary: GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) refused to admit Ashwini Malhotra’s appeal by exercising the discretion available under Section 112(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, since the amount of tax, input tax credit, fine, fee or penalty determined against the appellant did not exceed ₹50,000. The appeal arose from an order-in-appeal dated 25.09.2024 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh upheld penalties of ₹25,000 each, aggregating to ₹50,000, imposed upon the appellant under Section 122(3) in his capacity as Managing Director of two units of M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant had contended that the ten per cent pre-deposit requirement introduced in Section 112(8) with effect from 01.10.2025 could not apply because the show cause notices had been issued on 30.12.2022. In support, reliance was placed upon Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appeal Commissioner & Ors., Gaurav Jain & Anr. Vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. and Barjinder Singh Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue & Ors..
The Tribunal, however, disposed of the admission issue on a separate statutory ground. It noted that Section 112(2) empowers GSTAT, in its discretion, to refuse admission where the tax, ITC, fine, fee or penalty determined by the impugned order does not exceed ₹50,000. As the amount determined against Ashwini Malhotra was exactly ₹50,000, the Tribunal exercised that discretion and refused admission of the appeal.
Cases Discussed
- Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appeal Commissioner & Ors., 2026 (8) TMI 215 (GSTAT Hyderabad) — Relied upon by the appellant in support of the contention that the subsequently introduced pre-deposit requirement should not apply to proceedings initiated before the amendment.
- Gaurav Jain & Anr. Vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr., 2026 (8) TMI 85 (Delhi High Court) — Relied upon by the appellant on the applicability of the amended pre-deposit requirement to earlier proceedings.
- Barjinder Singh Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue & Ors., 2025 (11) TMI 294 (Calcutta High Court) — Relied upon by the appellant concerning the pre-deposit requirement.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF GSTAT
This appeal is pending for admission, in as much as the pre-deposit amount as per the proviso to subsection 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 has not been paid by the Appellant.
2. The matter was listed before this bench on 01.09.2026, “for admission (with defects)”. Sh. Sandeep Sachdeva and Ms. Samyuktha Pentyala, Ld. Advocates appeared for the Appellant over VC, as per their request for online hearing.
3. Sandeep Sachdeva, Ld. Advocate submitted that payment of pre-deposit was not required to be made in this appeal. He invited reference in this regard to the submissions filed on the portal on 14.08.2026. He submitted that the present appeal was filed against the penalty of total amount Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the Appellant under Section 122(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and did not involve any demand of tax against the Appellant. He pointed out that the show cause notices in this matter were issued to the Appellant on 30.12.2022, and at that time there was no requirement of pre-deposit of ten per cent of the penalty for filing an appeal against a penalty-only order. The said requirement was introduced in Section 112(8) only with effect from 01.10.2025, and the proceedings in this case were initiated vide the said notices dated 30.12.2022 much prior to the coming into force of the amended proviso to Section 112(8). Accordingly, he contended that the amended proviso was not applicable to the present appeal and no pre-deposit of ten per cent of the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- was payable by the Appellant.
4. The Ld. Advocate also placed reliance on the following judicial precedents cited in the case-compilation dated 31.08.2026 filed on the GSTAT portal: Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appeal Commissioner & Ors. 2026 (8) TMI 215 – GSTAT Hyderabad; Gaurav Jain & Anr. Vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. 2026 (8) TMI 85 – Delhi High Court; and Barjinder Singh Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue & Ors. 2025 (11) TMI 294 – Calcutta High Court.
5. Accordingly, he prayed on the Appellant’s behalf that the defect regarding pre-deposit may be removed, and the appeal be admitted for hearing on merits.
6. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh. Vide the said order-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each (total Rs. 50,000/-) imposed on the Appellant under Section 122(3) of the GGST Act, 2017 in his role and responsibility as Managing Director of two units of M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd. situated at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh & Pune, Maharashtra. Vide the said order-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also upheld the tax demanded from and penalty imposed upon M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd. However, in so far as the present appeal is concerned, the total amount of tax or input tax credit, or fine, fee or penalty determined by the impugned order-in-appeal qua the Appellant, does not exceed fifty thousand rupees.
7. Sub-section 112(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 states that any person aggrieved by an order passed against him under Section 107 or Section 108 may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within the time limit stipulated in the said sub-section. Further, sub-section 112(2) states that the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse to admit any appeal where the tax or input tax credit involved or the difference in tax or input tax credit involved or the amount of fine, fee or penalty determined by such order, does not exceed fifty thousand rupees.
8. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant as a person aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal dated 25.09.2024 passed against him under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. There is no dispute that the amount of tax or input tax credit or fine, fee or penalty determined by the said order-in-appeal against the Appellant does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. Accordingly, exercising the discretion conferred under sub-section 112(2) ibid., the present appeal is refused to be admitted. Ordered accordingly.
