The Delhi High Court has permitted a taxpayer alleging overlapping GST demands to file a statutory appeal along with an application seeking exemption from the pre-deposit requirement to the extent permissible in law. The Court observed that the appellate authority could examine whether the proceedings involved overlapping or duplicate demands.

The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar granted the company liberty to challenge the disputed order through the appellate mechanism under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026

The company had approached the High Court seeking to quash an order dated August 30, 2024. Its writ petition also challenged Notification Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023, dated March 31, 2023 and December 28, 2023, respectively.

The writ petition was among a batch of 48 petitions disposed of by the Bench on August 11, 2026, with the recorded consent of counsel representing the parties.

The company subsequently sought restoration of its petition. Its counsel submitted that his consent to the earlier disposal had been wrongly recorded. The Bench stated that it did not wish to dwell on that issue and considered the relief sought in the restoration application.

The Court separately allowed an application seeking condonation of an 11-day delay in filing the restoration application. Condonation of that delay, however, did not result in restoration of the writ petition.

The company’s principal concern was that the authorities had initiated parallel proceedings involving overlapping demands.

R.P. Singh, the counsel submitted that a show cause notice dated April 5, 2023 overlapped with another show cause notice dated August 14, 2024 and informed the Court that the company had already filed an appeal against an order dated August 14, 2023.

According to the company, filing a further appeal against the August 30, 2024 order would compel it to make another pre-deposit despite the alleged overlap between the proceedings.

The High Court did not determine whether the notices or demands were, in fact, duplicative. It observed that the appellate authority could examine the issue of overlap or duplication.

Counsel representing the respondents submitted that the company could file an application seeking exemption from the pre-deposit requirement to the extent that the demand overlapped. Counsel further stated that the respondents would have no objection to the appellate authority entertaining such an appeal.

Taking this statement into account, the Bench found no ground to restore the writ petition.

It nevertheless granted the company liberty to file an appeal against the August 30, 2024 order, accompanied by an application seeking exemption from the pre-deposit requirement “to the extent permissible in law.”

The direction does not amount to an automatic waiver of pre-deposit. The Court permitted the company to seek the exemption, leaving its consideration subject to the applicable law. It also left the underlying allegation of overlapping proceedings for examination by the appellate authority.

The Court directed that, if the company filed its appeal within two weeks of October 8, 2026, the period beginning with the institution of the writ petition and ending with the expiry of that two-week window would be excluded while calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal.

However, the Bench expressly required the appellate authority to independently determine the question of limitation in accordance with Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Accordingly, the order provides an exclusion of the specified period subject to timely filing within the window granted by the Court. It does not conclusively declare the proposed appeal to be within limitation.

Regarding the challenge to Notification Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023, the High Court noted that their validity was under consideration before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, SLP(C) No. 4240/2025.

The Bench stated that the Supreme Court’s ultimate judgment would benefit the company if applicable to its case. It did not independently decide the validity of the notifications in the restoration proceedings.

The Court dismissed the restoration application subject to the liberty and directions granted in its order.

The decision leaves the company free to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, raise its objection to alleged duplicate demands, and request pre-deposit exemption within the limits permitted by law. The merits of the overlap claim, the exemption request and the appeal’s limitation remain matters for the appellate authority to consider.

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.

Read More: CENVAT Credit Allowed On Steel Used For Machinery Parts And Supporting Structures: CESTAT