Ashwini Malhotra Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (GSTAT Chandigarh)
Summary: 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 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh, which had upheld penalties of ₹25,000 each, aggregating to ₹50,000, imposed upon the appellant under Section 122(3) in his role and responsibility as Managing Director of two units of M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd. situated at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh and Pune, Maharashtra.
The appeal was initially pending admission because the appellant had not paid the pre-deposit contemplated by the proviso to Section 112(8). The appellant contended that no pre-deposit was required because the appeal concerned only a ₹50,000 penalty and involved no tax demand against him. The show cause notices had been issued on 30.12.2022, whereas the requirement of ten per cent pre-deposit for a penalty-only appeal was introduced only with effect from 01.10.2025. It was therefore argued that the amended proviso could not govern proceedings initiated before its commencement.
In support, the appellant relied upon 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, and sought removal of the pre-deposit defect and admission of the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal, however, disposed of the matter on a different threshold ground. It noted that Section 112(1) permits a person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 107 or Section 108 to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, while Section 112(2) expressly empowers the Tribunal, in its discretion, to refuse admission where the tax or input tax credit involved, difference in tax or input tax credit, or the fine, fee or penalty determined by the order does not exceed ₹50,000.
The Tribunal found that the impugned order-in-appeal had been passed against the appellant under Section 107 and that the amount determined against him did not exceed ₹50,000. Accordingly, without deciding the appellant’s pre-deposit contention on merits, GSTAT exercised its statutory discretion under Section 112(2) and refused to admit 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 amended penalty-only appeal pre-deposit requirement should not apply to proceedings initiated before 01.10.2025.
- Gaurav Jain & Anr. Vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr. 2026 (8) TMI 85 – Delhi High Court — relied upon by the appellant in support of the contention against retrospective application of the amended pre-deposit requirement.
- Barjinder Singh Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue & Ors. 2025 (11) TMI 294 – Calcutta High Court — relied upon by the appellant on the applicability of a subsequently introduced 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 sub-section 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. Sh. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
