Anil Kumar Jha Vs Tata Steel Limited (GSTAT Ranchi)
Summary: The GST Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 716/CGST/JSR/2025 dated 31 October 2025. Tata Steel Limited had challenged Order-in-Original No. 23/CGST/Joint Commissioner/2024 dated 2 December 2024, described in the Tribunal’s order as having been passed under Section 74(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The First Appellate Authority found that Tata Steel filed its appeal six days after the three-month period under Section 107(1) and had filed no application for condonation of delay. It therefore dismissed the appeal on limitation without examining the merits.
The Revenue challenged that order under Section 112(3), read with Section 112(4), alleging failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6). The Tribunal noted that paragraph 5 of the first appellate order recorded submission of challan bearing CPIN No. 25032000012635 dated 12 March 2025 for ₹41,72,618 as proof of pre-deposit. It also observed that the original adjudication order remained operative and enforceable because the first appeal had been dismissed on limitation. Finding no infirmity warranting interference, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GSTAT
The matter is taken on physical mode.
Heard Shri Ratnesh Kumar Badiyar, Assistant Commissioner, CGST Jamshedpur on behalf of Appellant/ Revenue.
The Appellant/ Revenue has filed the above appeal u/s 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 by challenging the impugned order vide OIA No. 716/CGST/JSR/2025 dated 31.10.2025 passed by the first Appellate Authority.
Brief Facts of the case:-
The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed appeal against the Order passed under Section 74(3) of the CGST Act vide OIO No.23/CGST/Joint Commissioner/2024 dated 02.12.2024 and the said appeal was registered vide Appeal No. 716/CGST/JSR/2025 The Respondent averred various grounds in the appeal memo. The first appellate authority before going to the merit of the case held that the Respondent ought to have filed Appeal under 107 of the CGST Act within three months from the date of communication of such decision or order as contemplated under section 107(1) of the CGST Act but in the present case there has been delay of 06 days in filing of appeal and the respondent has not filed any condonation of application for such delay. Therefore, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without entertaining in to the merit of the case.
The revenue reviewed the appeal by exercising power vested under section 112(3) of the CGST Act and observed that the appellate authority order is liable to be set aside as the appellant has failed to comply the mandatory condition of pre-deposit prescribed under section 107(6) of the CGST Act at the time of filing of first appeal.
We perused the memorandum of appeal vis-à-vis the order passed by the first appellate authority. In the first appellate authority order, it is clearly manifest in the para 5 of the order that challan bearing CPIN No. 25032000012635 dated 12.03.2025 amounting to Rs. 41,72,618/- has been submitted by the appellant as the proof of payment of pre-deposit in as much as, the appeal has been dismissed by the first appellate authority on ground of limitation and thereby the original adjudication order is operative and enforceable. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 112(3), read with Section 112(4), of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Authority is uncalled for.
Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the grounds raised by the Revenue, and the findings recorded in the First Appellate Authority order, we find that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
