Where pre-deposit at first appeal stage exceeds cumulative requirement under Sections 107(6) and 112(8), no further deposit is required for Tribunal appeal; pre-deposit is not a separate levy: GSTAT Chennai

The Tribunal held that pre-deposit requirements under Sections 107(6) and 112(8) are not watertight compartments and that requiring a fresh deposit when three times the required amount already lies with the Revenue would defeat the legislative object of easing the appellant's working-capital burden.

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, has held that where the amount deposited by the appellant at the first appeal stage under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act exceeds the cumulative pre-deposit requirement computed on the tax surviving in dispute before the Tribunal, no further deposit is required for maintaining the appeal under Section 112(8) [LTM Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate].

The Bench of Praveen Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shaik Khader Rahman (Technical Member) observed that the measure under Section 112(8)(b) is the tax in dispute arising from the impugned order — in this case Rs. 53,90,420 upheld by the First Appellate Authority — and not the entire original demand of Rs. 3,29,47,353. Against the cumulative pre-deposit of Rs. 10,78,084 (20% of the surviving demand), the appellant had already deposited Rs. 32,94,735 through DRC-03 at the first appeal stage.

The Tribunal held that the words "in addition to the amount paid under sub-section (6) of section 107" fix a cumulative quantum — 10% at the first stage plus a further 10% at the Tribunal stage — and do not require a fresh challan. Requiring the Revenue to first refund the excess with interest and the appellant to then re-deposit the same money would be a circular exercise serving no revenue purpose and causing an interest outgo to the Exchequer.

Relying upon the Jharkhand High Court's ruling in Ashirwad Food Industries v. Union of India, the GSTAT Cuttack Bench's ruling in Manoranjan Dash v. Commissioner (including the Revenue's reconsideration application), the Madras High Court in MMTC-PAMP India (P.) Ltd., and CBIC Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST, the Tribunal held that pre-deposit is a portion of the disputed tax itself, adjusted if the appellant fails and refunded with interest if the appellant succeeds — it is not a separate levy.

The Tribunal directed that Rs. 10,78,084 out of the deposited amount shall stand appropriated as pre-deposit for both stages and shall not be reckoned for any other proceeding. It also directed the First Appellate Authority to electronically generate APL-04 within one month.

2026-juristway.com-2961-GSTAT(Chennai)-GST  |  GSTAT, Chennai  |  APL/751/CHE/2026  |  06.10.2026