ARTICLE
26 August 2026

Pre-deposit In Cases Involving Only Penalty – Amendment In Section 107(6) w.e.f. 1 October 2025, Requiring Pre-deposit, Is Not Applicable Where SCN Was Issued Earlier

LS
Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan

Contributor

Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan (LKS) is a premier full-service Indian law firm specializing in areas such as corporate & M&A/PE, dispute resolution, taxation and intellectual property. The firm, through its 14 offices across India works closely on litigation and commercial law matters, advising and representing clients both in India and abroad.
The Delhi High Court has ruled on a critical procedural question regarding the applicability of the 10% pre-deposit requirement for GST penalty appeals. The case examines whether amendments to Section 107(6) of the GST Act apply retrospectively to show cause notices issued before October 1, 2025, and explores the principles of vested appellate rights in tax proceedings.
India Tax
Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan are most popular:
  • within Insurance, Transport and Environment topic(s)
  • in India

The Delhi High Court has held that requirement of 10% pre-deposit for filing appeal to the Appellate Authority in cases involving only penalty is not applicable for the cases where the SCNs have been issued before 1 October 2025, the date of coming into force of the amendment to Section 107(6) requiring 10% pre-deposit.

The Court in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner noted the following:

  • Right to carry the proceedings in appeal exists as a component of the legal proceeding before the original authority renders its decision.
  • Material event is the date of SCN (25 June 2025) invoking penalty provisions under Section 122(1A).
  • Submission of replies and participation in the personal hearing after 1 October 2025 does not postpone the commencement of the proceedings.
  • Substituted proviso diminishes the appellate package attached to the proceedings on 25 June 2025.
  • Neither Section 129 of the Finance Act, 2025 nor the substituted proviso states that the new condition shall apply to adjudicatory proceedings pending on 1 October 2025.
  • Absence of any transitional provisions.
  • Substitution does not by itself divest rights which had already accrued under the earlier law.
  • Department’s reliance of the words ‘no appeal shall be filed’, was also rejected by relying on Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada.
  • Absence of an express saving clause would not aid the Department, since SC in Videocon holds that non-retrospective amendments do not affect rights and obligations crystallised at commencement of the lis, unless expressly or necessarily intended otherwise.
  • Legislative intention to impair a vested appellate right cannot be inferred merely from the fact that the amendment is expressed in general terms.
  • Fact that the petitioners initially sought waiver or reduction of the pre deposit does not determine the statutory regime applicable to their appeals.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More