Introduction
The Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) Amnesty Scheme for filing GST Appeals was notified[i] by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) on 02.11.2023, exercising its powers conferred under s. 148 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’), based on the recommendation of the 52nd GST Council.
Who Can Avail of the Benefits of the Scheme?
Any taxable person who failed to file an appeal against the order passed by the proper officer on or before 31.03.2023 under ss. 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, within the specified time period.
Any taxable person whose appeal was rejected solely on the grounds that it was not filed within the period of limitation, as specified under s. 107 of the CGST Act.
Deadline for Filing Appeals
Taxpayers can file appeals against orders passed by the proper officer using FORM GST APL-01 until 31.01.2024, as per the provisions of s. 107(1) of the CGST Act.
Conditions for Availing the Scheme
Before filing an appeal under the notification, the taxable person must:
Make a full payment of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty arising from the impugned orders passed by the proper officer.
Provide a pre-deposit equal to 12.5% of the tax under dispute, with a maximum limit of Rs. 25 crores. Further, at least 20% of this amount should be paid via the electronic cash ledger.
A barring condition is that appeals not arising out of an impending tax demand shall not be deemed admissible under the said notification.
Further, no refunds would be granted until the appeals are disposed of, for any excess amount paid by the appellant before issuance of the said notification.
Analysis
The GST Amnesty Scheme offers a crucial opportunity for eligible taxpayers to rectify non-compliance by filing appeals until 31.01.2024. The benefits include streamlined resolution of pending appeals, promotion of adherence to GST regulations, and a more efficient taxation system. By providing an extended window for appeals and setting specific conditions, the scheme facilitates a comprehensive approach to address past non-compliance issues within a defined timeframe.
End Note
[i] Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Notification 53/2023 – Central Tax, dt. 02.11.2023.
Authored by Anshi Bhatia, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.