M/S. Spandan Electrical vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Spandan Electrical, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 2,85,636/- and restoration of their electronic cash ledger balance. The petitioner had challenged an order dated October 14, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. To comply with Section 112 of the Act, the petitioner deposited 10 percent of the remaining tax in dispute on November 20, 2025. An appeal was also filed before the Tribunal on January 5, 2026. The petitioner contended that after making the statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8), the GST authorities should not have proceeded to recover any further sum based on the adjudication order affirmed by the appellate order.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to make a representation before the respondent GST Authorities, clearly indicating that the payment was made towards satisfaction of the provisions of Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017. If the authorities are satisfied that the pre-deposit under Section 112(8) has been made, they must adhere to Section 112(9) of the Act, which states that recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed until the appeal is disposed of. Furthermore, if the petitioner has made the deposit as per Section 112(8), the GST authorities are obligated to refund any sum recovered in excess of the amounts required to be deposited under Section 107(6) and Section 112(8) cumulatively. The Court emphasized that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the petitioner's claim and that the GST Authorities were free to seek clarifications and make an informed decision. The representation was to be considered expeditiously, preferably within two weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent GST authorities could proceed to recover sums from the petitioner after the petitioner had made the statutory pre-deposit in terms of Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 112(9) which mandates a stay on recovery proceedings for the balance amount. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that once the pre-deposit of 10 percent of the remaining tax in dispute, as required by Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017, was made, the respondent GST authorities were precluded from recovering any further sum. They contended that Section 112(9) of the Act mandates that recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed until the disposal of the appeal. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Advocate for the respondent/GST Authorities stated that they did not have instructions regarding the petitioner's contention that the pre-deposits had been made in terms of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 112, Section 107(6), Section 112(8), Section 112(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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 pre- deposits 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
3 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
4 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.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.