The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Hissar Registrar Court, has referred a defective appeal to the Principal Bench after observing that issues relating to statutory pre-deposit compliance following a corporate amalgamation, as well as the limitation for filing the appeal, cannot be adjudicated by the Registry during the scrutiny stage.
According to the Registrar’s order dated July 31, 2026, the appeal had initially been returned under a defect notice issued on July 1, 2026, requiring the appellant to rectify deficiencies and re-file the appeal with the necessary documents. However, the appellant failed to cure the defects within the prescribed period, prompting the Registry to list the matter for a personal hearing on July 17, 2026.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the company had not received the defect notice and was therefore unable to rectify the deficiencies in time. The Registry explained the defects during the hearing and granted additional time for compliance by listing the matter again on July 24, 2026. Although the appellant subsequently re-filed the documents, the Registry found that the defects had not been completely cured, leading to another hearing on July 31.
The principal issue raised by the appellant related to the statutory pre-deposit required for maintaining the GST appeal.
Reliance Infratel explained that the demand arising from the impugned order continued to exist under its own GSTIN. However, following its amalgamation pursuant to orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the statutory payment through Form GST DRC-03 had been generated under the GSTIN of Reliance Projects & Property Management Services Limited (RPPMSL).
As a consequence, the payment made on June 15, 2026 could not be linked with the corresponding Demand ID through Form GST DRC-03A, even though the appellant claimed that the statutory pre-deposit had in fact been made. The company argued that the inability to electronically link the payment resulted solely from the amalgamation and not from any failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement. It therefore requested that the pre-deposit be treated as duly satisfied and sought an opportunity of hearing before any adverse decision was taken.
The Registrar observed that the defects identified during scrutiny had not been fully removed. More importantly, the explanations furnished by the appellant involved questions extending beyond the Registry’s limited jurisdiction while scrutinizing appeals.
The order records that determining whether the pre-deposit requirement stood complied with despite the inability to electronically map the payment, as well as deciding questions concerning the limitation period for filing the appeal, required judicial consideration by the Tribunal rather than administrative scrutiny by the Registry.
In view of these issues, the Registrar directed that the appeal be placed before the Hon’ble Bench as a Defective Appeal for appropriate directions and orders regarding both the Registry’s objections and the submissions advanced by the appellant.
The order effectively leaves it to the GSTAT Bench to determine whether the pre-deposit made under the GSTIN of the amalgamated entity can be recognized as valid compliance with the statutory requirement and whether the appeal can proceed despite the unresolved defects and limitation issues.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
