+91 8192005690 info@markbly.in
Free Consultation
MARK AND ASSOCIATES LLP MARK AND ASSOCIATES LLP CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
GST

GST: Where assessee deposited required 10 percent pre-deposit for Tribunal-stage appeal and despite this recovery was effected impacting electronic cash ledger, any recovery beyond cumulative pre-deposit for first-appeal and Tribunal stages was refundable

Published on 16 Apr 2026

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Spandan Electrical v/s State of West Bengal*

OM NARAYAN RAI, J. WPA NO. 28120 OF 2025

FEBRUARY 17, 2026

Pre-deposit stay - Adjudication order had been passed and affirmed in first appeal - Petitioner filed Tribunal appeal after depositing 10 percent of disputed tax as Tribunal-stage pre-deposit - Despite this deposit, recovery was effected and electronic cash ledger balance was impacted - Petitioner filed writ seeking mandamus for refund and restoration of electronic cash ledger balance - HELD : It was noted that petitioner should submit representation to GST Authorities demonstrating satisfaction of Tribunal-stage pre-deposit requirement - If satisfied deposit was made, Authorities were obliged to give effect to statutory mandate that recovery of balance stood deemed stayed till disposal of Tribunal appeal - Since cumulative pre-deposits at first-appeal and Tribunal stages limited recoveries, any amount recovered beyond such cumulative requirement was refundable - Representation was to be decided expeditiously within two weeks - No view on merits was expressed - Writ petition stood disposed [Section 112, read with sections 79 and 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017] [Paras 7 and 8] [In favour of assessee]

Nilratan Banerjee and Arijit Dey for the Petitioner. Tanay Chakraborty and Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.

ORDER

  1. This writ petition seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to refund an amount of Rs. 2,85,636/- to the petitioner and restore the balance in the petitioner's electronic cash ledger.
  2. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner has with the intent of challenging an order dated October 14, 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 put in a sum equivalent of 10 percent of the remaining tax in dispute in terms of Section 112 of the said Act, 2017 on November 20, 2025. It is submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal has also been filed on January 5, 2026

i.e. subsequent to the filing of the writ petition.

  • Mr. Dey, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that once the statutory predeposit in terms of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 has been put in by the petitioner, the respondent/GST Authorities could not have proceeded to recover any sum from the petitioner on the strength of the adjudication order which was affirmed by the appellate order.
  • Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/GST Authorities submits that he does not have instructions as regards the petitioner's contention of the predeposits having been made in terms of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017.
  • Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.
  • Since, it is the petitioner's contention that the petitioner has made the pre-deposit in terms of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 and therefore, no recovery ought to have been made, the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to make appropriate representation before the respondent/ GST Authorities indicating to them that payment has been made by the petitioner towards satisfaction of the provisions of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017.
  • In case the respondent GST Authorities are satisfied that payment/deposit in terms of the provisions of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 has been made by the petitioner, the respondent GST Authorities would have to pay due respect to the provisions of Section 112(9) of the said Act of 2017 where it has been mandated that upon payment of the sum indicated in Section 112(8) being made, recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
  • If payment/deposit in terms of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 has been done by the petitioner, the respondent GST Authorities would refund any sum that may have been recovered by the respondent GST Authorities in excess of the amounts required to be deposited by the petitioner in terms of Section 107(6) and 112(8) of the said Act of 2017. To be precise any sum that may have been recovered from the petitioner beyond or in excess of the amounts required to be deposited by the petitioner at the two appellate stages i.e. under Section 107(6) and under Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 taken cumulatively, shall be refunded.
  • The representation made by the petitioner in such regard shall be considered by the GST Authorities as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner's representation.
  • It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner's contention and the respondent GST Authorities shall be free to take an informed decision in the matter. The respondent GST Authorities shall also be free to call for any clarification from the petitioner that may be required for the purpose of verification of the petitioner's contentions.
  • WPA 28120 of 2025 stands disposed of.