IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.10484 of 2025

DATED: 18.12.2025

Between:

M/s Sri Rajarajeshwara Swamy Devasthanam

... Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner of Central Tax,

Central Excise & Service Tax,

Medchal Commissionerate, Medchal GST Bhavan, # 11-4-649/B, Laddikapool, Hyderabad & another

... Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner through video conference and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing

for the respondents.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court as its application for exemption from pre-deposit under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act’) as a pre-condition for filing the appeal has been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.02.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken a plea that the petitioner is a Temple which is not in a position to make the pre-deposit. Apart from that, a plea has also been taken that on the same charges, proceedings in which petitioner succeeded at the appellate stage vide order dated 30.10.2023, the present proceedings have been initiated under the CGST Act levying tax, interest and penalty on the same grounds by the order-in-original dated 31.07.2024 against which the petitioner seeks to prefer an appeal by a waiver of pre-deposit. The prayer for waiver of the pre-deposit has been erroneously rejected though petitioner is not in a position to fulfil such onerous obligations. It is submitted that earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.28059 of 2024, which the learned Division Bench of this Court disposed of vide order dated 04.10.2024 with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal and make an application before the appellate authority for exemption of depositing the requisite amount. The impugned order has rejected the application for waiver for the reason that the appellate authority has no discretion in the manner.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the present challenge is basically confined to the rejection of the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit by the appellate authority. Therefore, it is submitted that contentions on merits need not be traversed at this stage. On the plea of waiver, he has relied upon a decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Impressive Data Services Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax GST, Delhi, W.P(C).No.4662 of 2025 & CMS Appl.No.21564 of 2025 wherein following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. V. CCE, (2017) 348 ELT A132 (SC), the learned Court has held that there is no discretion for waiver of the pre-deposit. It is submitted that the decision in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. (supra) was upheld by the Supreme Court in appeal. He has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of

vide order dated 15.04.2025

India³ in the context of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 introduced with effect from 06.08.2014 in similar manner as in the Excise Act wherein also the discretion to waive of the requirement of pre-deposit was taken away. It is submitted that the appellate authority has, therefore, rightly rejected the application as there is no discretion left in it to waive of the pre-deposit.

5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, we are also of the firm view that the provision under Section 107 of the CGST Act do not permit of any discretion for the appellate authority to waive the pre-deposit required to be made as a condition for filing appeal. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order.

6. The instant Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to make the pre-deposit b