Appeals should not be dismissed for procedural irregularities in pre-deposit payments without granting the appellant an opportunity to rectify the defect, as the right to appeal is a substantial legal entitlement that must be safeguarded against purely technical or formalistic denials.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule.

3. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.

4. This petition challenges the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.07.2025 made by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 19.04.2024 on account of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit in terms of Section 107 (6) of the CGST Act.

5. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:-

“10. This appeal is dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance for mandatory pre-deposit, in accordance with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of without delving into the merits of the case, as the issue of non-compliance with the directive for mandatory pre-deposit precludes any further consideration.”

6. Mr Ravi Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the pre-deposit was made, and this position has been accepted in the impugned order at paragraph 6. He pointed out that such a pre-deposit was made by the challan dated 09.07.2024. Without prejudice, he submits that, assuming that the deposit was not made by strictly following the procedure and the digitised regime, a fresh opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to make good this deficiency. He submitted that neither was any show cause notice issued to the petitioner nor was the petitioner granted a reasonable opportunity to cure the purely procedural defect, if any. On these grounds, he submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits.

7. Mr Pati submitted that the records show that there was no compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107 (6) of the CGST Act 2017. He submitted that the petitioner deposited the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 85,661/- into its cash ledger, which is an electronic wallet. He submitted that this does not amount to compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement, and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

8. Mr Akhtar admitted that the State was a formal party in this matter and, therefore, made no submissions on the controversy now raised.

9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

10. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the same has not been dealt with the merits of the appeal. The only ground on which the petitioner has been non-suited is the alleged non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit in accordance with section 107 (6) of the CGST Act 2017.

11. Section 107 of the CGST Act 2017 concerns appeals to the Appellate Authority. Sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the said Act, which is relevant, reads as follows:-

“Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-

6) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid-

(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and

(b) a sum equal to ten per cent. of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, [subject to a maximum of [twenty] crore rupees], in relation to which the appeal has been filed.

[Provided that in case of any order demanding penalty without involving demand of any tax, no appeal shall be filed against such order unless a sum equal to ten per cent. of the said penalty has been paid by the appellant.]”

12. Mr Pati sub