Full Judgment Text
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 4512/2026, upheld the constitutional validity of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
FACTS:
The appellant, Vikram Enterprises, challenged the requirement to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount as a precondition for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Authority. The appellant contended this violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and frustrated the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
HELD:
1. The mandatory pre-deposit is a regulatory measure to deter frivolous appeals and ensure revenue protection — it does not amount to a disproportionate restriction on the right to trade.
2. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked against a statutory provision that has been prospectively amended by Parliament in exercise of its plenary legislative power.
3. Article 14 is not violated as the classification between pre-GST and post-GST taxpayers is based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the GST legislation.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
The Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 4512/2026, upheld the constitutional validity of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
FACTS:
The appellant, Vikram Enterprises, challenged the requirement to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount as a precondition for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Authority. The appellant contended this violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and frustrated the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
HELD:
1. The mandatory pre-deposit is a regulatory measure to deter frivolous appeals and ensure revenue protection — it does not amount to a disproportionate restriction on the right to trade.
2. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked against a statutory provision that has been prospectively amended by Parliament in exercise of its plenary legislative power.
3. Article 14 is not violated as the classification between pre-GST and post-GST taxpayers is based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the GST legislation.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
