Ganesh Prasad vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Budge Budge Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ganesh Prasad, challenged the action of the respondent authorities in recovering the entire tax demand, after a 10% pre-deposit, from his Electronic Cash Ledger. A tax demand of Rs. 3,54,630/- for the tax period 2018-19 was raised via an order dated 18.01.2024. After making the requisite pre-deposit under Section 107(6) and 112(8) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, an appeal was filed. Despite this, Rs. 3,19,164/- was debited from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger on 21.01.2026. The petitioner submitted a representation on 02.03.2026 seeking re-credit of the excess amount, which was not addressed.
Held
The Court found a prima facie case made out by the petitioner warranting interference. It took judicial notice of the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2026. To balance equities and secure justice, the Court directed Respondent No. 1 to decide the representation within four weeks of the order's communication, after affording the petitioner a personal hearing. The decision was to be reasoned and in accordance with law, communicated within a week thereafter. If any amount was recovered in excess of the cumulative pre-deposits required under Section 107(6) and Section 112(8), it was to be refunded or re-credited to the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger, in view of Section 112(9) of the Act. The Court clarified that Respondent No. 1 must make an independent decision without being influenced by any observations in the order. The petitioner was directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the recovery of the balance tax demand from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger, after a pre-deposit of 10% for filing an appeal, is arbitrary, illegal, and in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to Section 112(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the recovery was impermissible as Section 112(9) mandates that recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed upon payment of the sum indicated in Section 112(8). They relied on a coordinate bench's order in WPA 28120 of 2025 (M/s. Spandan Electrical –Vs.- the State of West Bengal & Ors.). The CGST Authorities stated they had no objection to the consideration and disposal of the petitioner's representation. The State respondent did not dispute the statutory mandate of Section 112(9) of the Act.
Sections Cited
Section 107(6), Section 112(8), Section 112(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order date 18.01.2024. After depositing the requisite pre- deposit under Section 107 (6) and 112 (8) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, an appeal has been
2 preferred before respondent no.
Despite compliance, a sum of Rs. 319164 has been debited/recovered from the petitioner’s Electronic Cash Ledger on 21.1.2026. Against such illegal recovery, a representation dated 2.3.2026 was submitted before respondent no. 1 seeking recredit/refund of the excess amount.
The issue is squarely covered by a judgment and order dated 17.02.2026 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WPA 28120 of 2025 (M/s. Spandan Electrical –Vs.- the State of West Bengal & Ors.) relevant extract whereof is reproduced below: “ 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
3 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.”
Learned counsel appearing for the CGST Authorities takes a fair stand and submits that he has no objection to consideration and disposal of the representation dated 2.3.2026 in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the state respondent does not dispute the statutory mandate of Section 112 (9) of the said Act.
Having heard the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference at this stage. This Court has taken judicial notice of the representation dated 2.3.2026. To balance the equities and to secure the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the said representation dated 2.3.2026 within a period of four weeks from the date of
4 communication of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The decision so taken shall be communicated within a week thereafter.
If it is found that any amount has been recovered in excess of the cumulative pre-deposits required under Section 107 (6) and Section 112 (8) of the said of the 2017, the same shall be refunded/recredited to the electronic cash Credit Ledger of the petitioner in view of section 112 (9) of the Act, 2017. 9. However, it is made clear that the respondent no. 1 shall not be influenced by any observations shall take an independent decision in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall not take any unnecessary adjournments before the respondent no.1. 11. With the above observations and directions, the W.P.A. 10935 of 2026 is disposed of without going into the merits of the case.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Smita Das De, 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.