Being part of the Himalayan belt, North-East India is well-known for its frequent seismic activities due to its proximity to the region of convergence of the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates, thereby creating a complex geological environment. The tectonically active Indo-Burmese arc, which runs along the eastern border of North-East India, significantly aggravates the regional seismic activity. Remedial measures against slope failures during seismic events seeks special attention in this tectonically active region. The current study focusses on assessing an existing wrap-faced geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) wall at the North-East Police Academy (NEPA) in Shillong, Meghalaya. The geogrid reinforced wrap-faced wall was constructed behind the community hall to increase the retention capacity and provide safeguard against any possible slope failure. The wall, having a length to wall height ratios (L/H) of 0.7, was initially designed for static and pseudo-static scenarios. However, for a better comprehension of its dynamic behavior during a seismic event, a fully dynamic analysis becomes imperative. In this regard, non-linear time-history analysis of the stated wrapped-face GRS wall is conducted in a finite element framework. The study investigated the behavior of the stated geotechnical structure while subjecting it to the April 25, 2015, Nepal (Gorkha) strong motion. The results show that the maximum tensile load on the reinforcement is predicted to be higher at the bottom one-third of the wall, attributed to the mobilization of tensile stress by the overburden pressure of the backfill soil. Maximum lateral displacement of the wall face is observed at the top of the wall that is found to be non-linearly decreasing with wall height in all the analysis types, with the highest magnitude recorded in the pseudo-static analysis. The amplification of horizontal acceleration is observed to increase significantly with the wall height in both reinforced and unreinforced zones. However, the amplification recorded in the reinforced zone exhibited notable variation, likely due to differences in the rigidity of the reinforced and unreinforced regions. Based on the results, it is recommended that for important and sensitive structures in a seismic-prone zone, it is always prudent to conduct a time-dependent dynamic analysis to identify the realistic response of the system rather than simply relying upon the commonly over-estimating pseudo-static design.