Case Law Details
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.
2. The Facts Behind the Mismatch
The background of this case highlights how early GST implementation hurdles created artificial tax liabilities:
A. Background of petitioner: the petitioner runs a small proprietary concern dealing in tobacco, pan-masala, and confectionery products under HSN classifications 2403, 2106, 1704, and 2008.
B. Monthly filing error: During F.Y. 2018–19, petitioner’s accounting clerk correctly entered outward sales and Compensation Cess liabilities of Rs. 1,04,62,735.02 in Form GSTR-1 but when it came to monthly summary returns in Form GSTR-3B, the clerk accidentally omitted these matching liability figures. At the same time, eligible Compensation Cess Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 1,13,61,491.72 sitting auto-drafted in Form GSTR-2A was left un-availed in GSTR-3B.
C. Transparent Annual Return under Section 44 of CGST/SGST Act: Finding the oversight, the petitioner did not hide anything. The petitioner used the statutory annual return mechanism under Section 44, filing Form GSTR-9 on 28.12.2020. the petitioner declared the forgotten sales liability and claimed the matching accrued Cess credit in Table 6(B). Because the available credit exceeded the outward tax, the net tax liability turned out to be exactly Zero (Rs. 0) in our case.
D. The Assessment Order: The State Tax Officer (5), Unit-57(1), Surat ignored the annual return of petitioner. On 13.03.2023, the State Tax Officer (5), Unit-57(1), Surat passed an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, confirming a demand of Rs. 1,90,42,969 (Rs. 1,04,63,170 Tax/Cess + Rs. 75,33,483 Interest + Rs. 10,46,317 Penalty) strictly relying on the Section 16(4) time-bar.
E. Summary Rejection: The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-7), Surat dismissed the statutory appeal on 30.04.2025 under Section 107(6) simply because the petitioner could not deposit the 10% pre-deposit i.e. Rs. 19,00,000.
3. Legal Arguments Presented in Court
A. Departmental Estoppel via a Parallel “Rs. 0” Order
While the main appeal was pending, the department issued another Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 on 28.12.2023 covering identical ledger entries for F.Y. 2018–19. The petitioner submitted his purchase registers and invoices. Examining the same GSTR-3B table mismatch, the State Tax Officer formally recorded “Agreed with Tax Payer” and issued a drop order on 02.03.2024 confirming Zero (Rs. 0) liability.
B. GSTR-9 cannot be treated as a dead letter
We relied on the Division Bench ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Pioneer Co-operative Car Parking Servicing & Construction Society Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (MAT 1983/2023, 21.01.2025). The Calcutta High Court held that tax authorities must consider ITC disclosed in Form GSTR-9. Disregarding annual returns renders the statutory reconciliation mechanism under Section 44 of CGST/SGST Act completely meaningless.
C. Retrospective section 16(5) relief
Parliament inserted Section 16(5) into the CGST Act via the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, overriding Section 16(4) for F.Y. 2017–18 through 2020–21 for returns filed up to 30.11.2021. CBIC Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST dated 15.10.2024 instructs appellate authorities in Para 3.3 to take active note of Section 16(5) and drop old Section 16(4) demands in pending matters.
D. Avoiding a cascading tax effect
The petitioner’s suppliers had paid the full tax into the treasury, which was reflected in Form GSTR-2A. Refusing credit over a reporting column mistake forces double taxation and creates a tax-on-tax cascade.
E. Evidence of financial incapacity
Demanding a pre-deposit of nearly Rs. 19,00,000 from an individual proprietor making Rs. 1.7 Lakhs to Rs. 4.1 Lakhs a year would instantly bankrupt his business. Rulings from various High Courts i.e. Shubh Impex (Delhi HC), Texplas India (Uttarakhand HC), Narender Yadav (Delhi HC), and Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed (Delhi HC) supports the petitioner’s case wherein the pre-deposit has been waived.
4. What the Gujarat High Court Held (Order Dated 16.07.2026)
After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble Court disposed of Special Civil Application No. 9100 of 2026 with directions:
“3. We are of the considered opinion that in the peculiar set of facts, one opportunity is required to be given to the present petitioner to explain his pecuniary condition / financial incapacity of making a pre-deposit, as required under Section 107(6) of the Act. If, such Application is filed, the Appellate Authority may consider the same, in accordance with law…”
5. Key Takeaways for Tax Advocates
1. Prove Hardship through Income Tax Returns: When seeking pre-deposit relief, do not rely on vague statements. Build a clear paper trail using multi-year ITRs to demonstrate real cash-flow limits.
2. Stand Firm on GSTR-9 Reconciliations: Taxpayers who corrected monthly reporting mistakes inside Form GSTR-9 during initial GST years have strong legal standing under Pioneer Co-operative.
3. Enforce Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST: Field officers and First Appellate Authorities must apply retrospective relief under Section 16(5) and drop old Section 16(4) time-bar demands.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. Learned advocate Mr. Mihirkumar V. Patel has submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to file an Application requesting the Appellate Authority to waive the condition of pre-deposit, as mandated under the provision of Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’). It is submitted that, the petitioner is facing financial crunch and is not in a position to make a pre-deposit of Rs.19,00,000/- It is submitted that, the petitioner in his Appeal memo was unable to justify the waiver of pre- deposit.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parth Patel has submitted that the provision of Section 107(6) of the Act is self-explanatory and unless the petitioner makes a pre-deposit, as prescribed under the said Section, the Appeal cannot be filed.
3. We are of the considered opinion that in the peculiar set of facts, one opportunity is required to be given to the present petitioner to explainhis pecuniary condition / financial incapacity of making a pre-deposit, as required under Section 107 (6) of the Act. If, such Application is filed, the Appellate Authority may consider the same, in accordance with law. It is clarify that, this order shall not be treated as precedent and is passed in the peculiar set of the present facts.
In view of above, the present Petition stands disposed of.
***
Author: Mihirkumar V. Patel is an independent Advocate practicing before the High Court of Gujarat, Debts Recovery Tribunal- 1 and 2 at Ahmedabad, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. He specializes in Writ Petitions (Article 226), Direct and Indirect Tax Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Land disputes, RERA, Banking, SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, Recovery Disputes.
Author Bio
