GST Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack8 July 2026

Manoranjan Dash v. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST

For assessee

The ruling in brief

Where appellant disputed any further statutory pre-deposit for Tribunal appeal after already depositing ten per cent of original disputed tax at first appeal, and first appellate order had reduced tax demand, no further pre-deposit was required for Tribunal stage since requirements under section 112 stood satisfied by earlier deposit.

Where Appellate Authority reduced demand and appellant filed Tribunal appeal paying court fee of Rs. 3,000 though minimum court fee prescribed under Rule 110(5) was Rs. 5,000 at Rs. 1,000 per one lakh, short payment existed and appellant was required to pay the balance

Provisions considered

Section 112, read with section 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Rule 110 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position

Rajasthan High Court20 Aug 2026

For assessee

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

Where petitioner’s statutory appeal delay was due to non-communication by CA not attributable to petitioner, and refusal to consider appeal on merits would cause serious prejudice, delay in filing was condoned and Appellate Authority was directed to hear appeal on merits

CGST S.107

GSTAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2026

For revenue

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

Where appellant, as Managing Director, faced personal penalty of Rs 25,000 each under section 122(3) for two company units and total amount determined against appellant did not exceed Rs 50,000, Tribunal exercised statutory discretion to refuse admission as threshold requirement was not met, resulting in dismissal of appeal

CGST S.112

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Rajasthan High Court20 Aug 2026

For assessee

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

CGST S.107

GSTAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2026

For revenue

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate

CGST S.112

Manoranjan Dash v. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Manoranjan Dash v. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

New Godara Trading Co. v. State of Rajasthan

Ashwini Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Commissionerate