GSTAT Chandigarh Refuses Admission of Appeal Under Section 112(2) of CGST Act, 2017 — Penalty of Rs. 50,000 Falls Within Discretionary Bar
Case Overview
Case Name: Ashwini Malhotra Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (GSTAT Chandigarh)
**Filing No.😗* 2026050101000347
Date of Order: 22/09/2026
Forum: GST Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Chandigarh Bench, exercised its statutory discretion under Section 112(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) to refuse admission of an appeal filed by Ashwini Malhotra. The refusal was grounded in the fact that the total amount of tax, input tax credit, fine, fee, or penalty determined against the appellant by the impugned order-in-appeal did not exceed Rs. 50,000 — the threshold prescribed under the said provision.
Notably, the Tribunal did not rule on the substantive pre-deposit dispute that the appellant had raised, choosing instead to dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself on this independent statutory ground.
Background and Factual Matrix
The present appeal before the GSTAT arose out of an order-in-appeal dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh. Through that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld penalties of Rs. 25,000 each — aggregating to a total of Rs. 50,000 — imposed upon Ashwini Malhotra in his capacity as Managing Director of two units of M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd., one located at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh and the other at Pune, Maharashtra.
The penalties were imposed under Section 122(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The order-in-appeal had also upheld a tax demand and penalty against M/s Weikfield Foods Pvt. Ltd. as a corporate entity. However, the appeal before the GSTAT was filed specifically by Ashwini Malhotra as an individual, and the quantum determined against him personally — i.e., the two penalties of Rs. 25,000 each — did not exceed the Rs. 50,000 threshold.
The Pre-Deposit Dispute Raised by the Appellant
When the matter came up before the Tribunal on 01.09.2026, the appeal was listed "for admission (with defects)." The defect flagged was the non-payment of the pre-deposit amount as stipulated under the proviso to Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Sh. Sandeep Sachdeva and Ms. Samyuktha Pentyala, appearing as advocates for the appellant (the latter via video conference as per the appellant's request for online hearing), contended that the pre-deposit requirement was inapplicable to the present appeal. The core of the argument was as follows:
- The show cause notices in this matter were issued on 30.12.2022.
- At the time of issuance of those notices, there was no statutory requirement to deposit ten per cent of the penalty amount before filing an appeal against a penalty-only order.
- The requirement of a ten per cent pre-deposit for such appeals was introduced into
Section 112(8)only with effect from 01.10.2025. - Since the proceedings were initiated on 30.12.2022 — well before the amended proviso came into force — the appellant argued that the retrospective or retroactive application of the pre-deposit condition to his case would be legally impermissible.