The Mumbai Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal and the Kerala High Court restored appeals rejected for pre-deposit lapses under Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, and the Tribunal also quashed a ₹10,81,339 import-credit demand.
A shortfall or misdirected payment in the pre-deposit for an appeal under the special procedure in Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax is a curable defect that does not make an appeal filed within the window time-barred under Section 107, GSTAT Mumbai and the Kerala High Court have held. [Aslam Vali Shaikh v. Nilesh Subhash Kothawade, Mumbai, 2026-juristway.com-3286-GSTAT(Mumbai)-GST; Alis Super Market v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3287-HC(Kerala)-GST]
Atul Madhukar Kurhekar, Member (Judicial), and J. Michael Kennedy, Member (Technical), decided the appeal; Justice Gopinath P. decided the writ petition.
Aslam Vali Shaikh. An importer filed his first appeal on 30 Jan 2024 under the notification, which allowed appeals against orders passed on or before 31 Mar 2023 up to 31 Jan 2024, on a pre-deposit of 12.5% of the tax in dispute with at least 20% of it through the Electronic Cash Ledger. He paid the full 12.5% through the Electronic Credit Ledger, and the appeal was rejected on 4 Mar 2025 as also time-barred.
The Bench held that paragraph 3 of the notification regulates the quantum and mode of the deposit, while paragraph 2 fixes the limitation. Paying a fifth of it through the wrong ledger was a deviation in mode, and the authority should have specified the deficiency and allowed it to be cured. Relying on Oasis Realty v. Union of India (WP(ST) No. 23507 of 2022), it held that no further cash deposit was required, as that would exceed the 12.5% the notification prescribes.
Deciding the merits under Section 113(1), the Bench quashed an ex parte demand of ₹10,81,339 under Section 73(9) for 2018-19. The ITC of ₹6,36,082 was IGST the importer paid on three bills of entry, all reflected in GSTR‑2A. Supplier-related conditions in Section 16(2) cannot apply to import credit, clause (aa) was not in force in 2018-19, and the mismatch arose only because import credit was reported as ‘All other ITC’ in GSTR‑3B and compared with Table 8A of GSTR‑9, which excludes imports.
Alis Super Market. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as filed beyond the time allowed by Section 107. The petitioner had not paid the additional 2.5% of disputed tax required by the notification when filing, but paid it later. The Court held that the authority had not considered whether the petitioner was entitled to the notification and should have given it an opportunity to pay, failure to pay the additional 2.5% being a curable defect. The appeal was restored for fresh orders.
2026-juristway.com-3286-GSTAT(Mumbai)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3287-HC(Kerala)-GST
