The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Cuttack Bench, has delivered an important ruling that provides significant relief to taxpayers pursuing second appeals under the GST law. In Manoranjan Dash v. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT & GST & Ors. (Order dated 08.07.2026), the Tribunal held that a taxpayer cannot be compelled to make a fresh statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, where the amount already deposited while filing the first appeal is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement after the tax demand has been substantially reduced by the First Appellate Authority.
The decision clarifies the interpretation of the pre-deposit provisions under the GST regime and ensures that taxpayers are not burdened with unnecessary financial obligations merely because they are exercising their statutory right to file a second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, wherein the tax authorities confirmed a demand against the taxpayer on the allegation of excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the taxpayer preferred a statutory appeal before the First Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. As required under the law, the appellant deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount as a mandatory pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal.
Upon hearing the matter, the First Appellate Authority substantially reduced the tax demand. Although the taxpayer still remained aggrieved by certain findings and chose to file a further appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112, the Tribunal Registry raised objections at the scrutiny stage.
The Registry insisted that the appellant should:
- Deposit another statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act; and
- Pay the prescribed Tribunal court fee under Rule 110(5) of the CGST Rules.
The taxpayer accepted the requirement regarding payment of the Tribunal fee but challenged the demand for an additional pre-deposit.
Legal Issue Before the Tribunal
The principal issue before the GST Appellate Tribunal was:
Whether a taxpayer is required to make a fresh pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act when the amount already deposited while filing the first appeal exceeds the statutory percentage of the reduced tax demand determined by the First Appellate Authority?
This question assumes practical importance because tax demands are frequently modified or substantially reduced in first appeals. If the original pre-deposit is calculated on the higher demand but the Tribunal insists on another deposit despite the reduced liability, taxpayers may end up depositing amounts far beyond the statutory requirement.
Tribunal’s Findings
The GST Appellate Tribunal answered the issue in favour of the taxpayer.
The Tribunal observed that after the First Appellate Authority reduced the tax demand, the pre-deposit already made by the appellant under Section 107 was more than sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement prescribed under Section 112(8) for filing a second appeal.
Therefore, insisting on an additional pre-deposit merely because the appeal had reached the Tribunal would defeat the purpose of the statutory scheme and impose an unnecessary financial burden on the appellant.
The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in M/s Ashirwad Food Industries v. Union of India, wherein the High Court had similarly held that excess pre-deposit made during the first appellate proceedings could be adjusted towards the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing the second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Following the same principle, the Tribunal concluded that there was no legal justification for insisting upon a second mandatory deposit when the earlier deposit already exceeded the amount required on the revised tax demand.
Tribunal’s Direction
While granting relief on the issue of pre-deposit, the Tribunal clarified that the appellant was still required to comply with the procedural requirement relating to payment of the prescribed Tribunal court fee.
Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the appellant to:
- Pay the balance Tribunal court fee prescribed under Rule 110(5) of the CGST Rules;
- Produce proof of the earlier statutory pre-deposit made before the First Appellate Authority; and
- After verification of these compliances, the Registry was directed to place the appeal before the Bench for admission.
Significance of the Judgment
This decision is likely to have a wide impact on GST litigation across India.
Many taxpayers receive substantial relief before the First Appellate Authority, resulting in a significant reduction of the original tax demand. In such situations, the pre-deposit already made while filing the first appeal may naturally exceed the amount required under Section 112(8).
The GSTAT Cuttack has now clarified that taxpayers should not be compelled to make duplicate or excessive statutory deposits simply because they are exercising their right to file a second appeal.
The ruling also promotes the legislative objective behind statutory pre-deposit provisions, which is to secure a reasonable portion of the disputed tax rather than create avoidable financial hardship for litigants.
Key Takeaway
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, has reaffirmed that there cannot be a double pre-deposit under the GST law where the amount already deposited during the first appeal sufficiently satisfies the statutory requirement for the second appeal after reduction of the tax demand.
The Tribunal has made it clear that excess pre-deposit under Section 107 can be adjusted against the requirement under Section 112(8), and the authorities cannot insist upon another mandatory deposit merely because a second appeal has been filed.
This ruling provides welcome clarity on the operation of GST appellate provisions and reinforces the principle that procedural requirements should not be interpreted in a manner that results in unjustified financial burdens on taxpayers.
Case: Manoranjan Dash v. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT & GST & Ors.
Order Date: 08 July 2026
Forum: GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Cuttack Bench