HomeNotification10% Pre-Deposit On Only Penalty For Filing 1st GST Appeal Yet To Be...

10% Pre-Deposit On Only Penalty For Filing 1st GST Appeal Yet To Be Notified

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

Taxpayers contesting penalty-only assessments under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime continue to await formal notification of a proposed reduction in the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for first appeals. 

Despite the GST Council’s recommendation to lower the pre-deposit from 25% to 10% of the penalty amount, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has not yet issued the necessary notification to implement this change.

During its 55th meeting on December 21, 2024, the GST Council proposed amending Sections 107 and 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. This amendment aimed to facilitate the appeals process for cases involving only penalties, without any associated tax demand. The Council suggested reducing the pre-deposit requirement to 10% of the penalty amount to alleviate the financial burden on taxpayers. 

However, as of April 29, 2025, the CBIC has not issued a notification to enforce this proposed amendment. Consequently, taxpayers appealing penalty-only orders are still subject to the existing 25% pre-deposit requirement.​

In contrast, the CBIC has implemented other changes to pre-deposit requirements. Effective November 1, 2024, the pre-deposit for appeals involving disputed tax amounts was reduced to 10%, with caps lowered to Rs. 20 crore for CGST and SGST, and Rs. 40 crore for IGST.  These changes, however, do not extend to penalty-only appeals.​

The delay in notifying the reduced pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals has led to uncertainty among taxpayers and professionals. Many are hopeful that the CBIC will soon formalize the amendment, aligning the procedural requirements with the GST Council’s recommendations and providing relief to those challenging penalty assessments.

Read More: Amount Paid Under Protest After Clearance Of Goods Is Not Covered By Unjust Enrichment: CESTAT

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Co-Owner Can Gift Undivided Share Without Consent of Other Co-Owner: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a co-owner is legally entitled to gift or...

Elevators Are ‘Common Carriers’, Manufacturers Owe Heightened Duty of Care: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that elevators installed in public buildings must be treated...

Ad Hoc Promotee Deputy Collectors Can Count Service for Seniority if Promotion Falls Within Quota: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court has held that Deputy Collectors promoted on an ad hoc basis...

HC Can’t Deny Selection Scale Due to Missing ACRs Caused by Wrongful Discharge: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court has held that an employer cannot deny Selection Scale or Super...

More like this

Co-Owner Can Gift Undivided Share Without Consent of Other Co-Owner: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a co-owner is legally entitled to gift or...

Elevators Are ‘Common Carriers’, Manufacturers Owe Heightened Duty of Care: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that elevators installed in public buildings must be treated...

Ad Hoc Promotee Deputy Collectors Can Count Service for Seniority if Promotion Falls Within Quota: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court has held that Deputy Collectors promoted on an ad hoc basis...