An appeal cannot be dismissed for pre-deposit shortfall without notice and an opportunity to cure.

The Petitioner, a registered trader in cotton, faced a GST demand of ₹14,77,57,828 under the Reverse Charge Mechanism on purchases of rock cotton from agriculturists.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and appropriated ₹1,50,00,000 paid during the investigation.

After the Petitioner’s appeal was rejected, it challenged that decision, contending that the amount already paid exceeded the required pre-deposit and that the appeal had been dismissed without a defect memo, notice, or opportunity to be heard.

1. Whether the Appellate Authority could dismiss the appeal for a pre-deposit shortfall without first giving the Petitioner notice or an opportunity to address the shortfall.

2. Whether the Authority was required to consider the Petitioner’s payment of ₹1,50,00,000 during the investigation when determining compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

The Court applied the principle that an appeal should not be dismissed for a shortfall in pre-deposit without first giving the appellant a defect memo, notice, or an opportunity of hearing to satisfy the shortfall.

It also treated the applicable statutory pre-deposit requirement, read with the Circular dated 11 July 2024, as relevant to assessing the Petitioner’s compliance.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision or cite any precedent.

The Court found that the Petitioner had received no defect memo, notice, or opportunity before its appeal was dismissed.

It further held that the ₹1,50,00,000 already deposited during the investigation was a relevant fact, particularly since the Petitioner contended that it exceeded the required pre-deposit.

Because the Appellate Authority had not considered that payment or afforded the Petitioner an opportunity to address any shortfall, the dismissal could not stand.

It directed the Authority to give the Petitioner a fresh hearing, particularly on pre-deposit, and to decide the proceedings within 12 weeks after the Court’s order was produced before it.

The Petitioner’s authorised representative was directed to appear on 21 October 2026 at 11:00 a.m.; all contentions on the merits were kept open.