Ratanlal Manikchand Tailor Vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (Gujarat High Court)
Brief: In a recent order dated 16.07.2026 in Special Civil Application No. 9100 of 2026 Ratanlal Manikchand Tailor v. State of Gujarat, where I represented the petitioner before the High Court of Gujarat, the Division Bench carved out an equitable exception under Article 226. The Court permitted a small proprietary taxpayer facing severe financial hardship to seek pre-deposit relaxation before the Appellate Authority against a demand born out of a monthly GSTR-3B entry oversight in the F.Y. 2018-19.
1. Introduction
In daily tax practice across Gujarat, we frequently encounter small traders stuck by rigid procedures under CGST/SGST Act. Section 107(6) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 mandates a 10% cash pre-deposit of the disputed tax before an appeal can even be registered. Departmental officers treat this requirement as an unyielding wall. If a taxpayer won’t be able to deposit mandatory pre-deposit , the appeal gets thrown out at the doorstep.
This exact scenario unfolded in Ratanlal Manikchand Tailor Proprietor of M/s Purvaj Sales v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (SCA No. 9100 of 2026). Appearing for the petitioner before the High Court of Gujarat, we challenged the order which was passed stating that the petitioner failed to submit the pre-deposit. On 16.07.2026, the Hon’ble High Court accepted our plea, recognizing that when an assessment demand stems from an inadvertent filing oversight reconciled in GSTR-9 without a single rupee of tax loss, forcing a multi-lakh pre-deposit on a struggling proprietor violates basic equity.
