Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
In the case of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, the Patna High Court ruled that pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/SGST Act is permissible solely by utilizing amounts from the Electronic Cash Ledger and not the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Read SC Judgment: Supreme Court Allows Revival of GST Appeals Despite Pre-deposit Dispute
Introduction
The landscape of indirect taxation in India, especially under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, is marked by complex legal nuances and frequent judicial interpretations. One such critical aspect pertains to the pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/BGST Act. The recent case of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Bihar, adjudicated by the Patna High Court, has brought to light a crucial debate surrounding the utilization of amounts from the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECRL) and the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) for satisfying the pre-deposit requirement.
Background of the Case
In the Flipkart case, the central issue revolved around whether debiting ECRL could fulfill the pre-deposit requirement of 10 percent of the remaining disputed tax amount, as mandated by Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/BGST Act. The court delved into the submissions made by both parties, scrutinizing the contention that pre-deposit through ECRL was valid based on certain circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIT&C).
Analysis of CBIT&C Circulars
The court scrutinized the relevant clarifications contained in the CBIT&C circular dated 06.07.2022, particularly focusing on issues 6, 7, and 8. These issues addressed the utilization of amounts in the electronic credit ledger for various purposes, including payment of output tax, interest, penalty, fees, and liabilities under the GST laws.
Issue 6 clarified that the electronic credit ledger could be used for making payments towards output tax under the CGST Act or the IGST Act, subject to prescribed rules. It explicitly stated that the electronic credit ledger couldn’t be used for taxes payable under reverse charge mechanisms.
Issue 7 emphasized that the electronic credit ledger could only be utilized for the payment of output tax and couldn’t cover other liabilities such as interest, penalty, fees, or any other amount payable under the GST laws.
Issue 8 clarified that the electronic cash ledger could be used for making payments of various liabilities under the GST laws, including tax, interest, penalty, fees, or any other amount.
Court’s Interpretation
The court meticulously analyzed the provisions of Section 49(3) and Section 49(4) of the CGST/BGST Act along with Rule 85(4) and Rule 86 of the CGST/BGST Rules. It concluded that Section 49(4) specifically limited the use of amounts available in the ECRL for making payments towards output tax under the CGST/BGST or the IGST.
The court also highlighted the distinction between Section 49(3) and Section 49(4), noting that while Section 49(3) was illustrative, Section 49(4) provided an exhaustive list of payments allowed from the ECRL.
Interpretation of Appeal Form and Instructions
The court further analyzed the Appeal Form under Section 107 of the Act, emphasizing the two distinct components – payment of the admitted amount and pre-deposit. It clarified that payment from ECRL was permissible for the admitted amount, but for pre-deposit, the option was provided for payment through the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL).
Precedents and Dissent
The court addressed precedents cited by the petitioners, including decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts. It rejected the applicability of these decisions, asserting that they were distinguishable based on the specific statutory provisions governing pre-deposit under the CGST/BGST Act.
The court specifically disagreed with the Bombay High Court’s decision in Oasis Realty, stating that the expression “sum equal to” in Section 107(6)(b) indicated a specific amount, not a percentage of the disputed tax.
Conclusion
In its final observations, the court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Appellate Authority’s conclusion that pre-deposit (10 percent) under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/BGST Act could only be done by utilizing amounts in the ECL. The court’s decision was grounded in a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions, emphasizing that when a statute prescribes a specific method, all other methods are expressly excluded.
Implications and Way Forward
The Flipkart case holds significance as it clarifies the procedural aspects of pre-deposit for maintaining appeals under the GST laws. Taxpayers and legal practitioners must carefully consider the Electronic Cash Ledger for fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement, adhering to the statutory framework.
This case also underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of GST laws, as misinterpretations can lead to procedural non-compliance. It is advisable for businesses to stay abreast of judicial developments and seek professional guidance to navigate the intricate terrain of indirect taxation in India.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
1 These writ petitions have been considered together, as they involve common questions of law and identical issues and are accordingly being disposed of by the present common judgement and order.
2 The three writ petitioners, while availing the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act/Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act, have resorted to debiting of their respective electronic credit ledger (ECRL) for an amount equal to 10 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the assessment order in relation to which the appeal has been filed. Such sum is required to be deposited, failing which appeal would not be maintainable in terms of sub-Section 6 (b) of Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, which reads as follows:
“107(6). No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid—
(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and
(b) a sum equal to ten percent. of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, in relation to which the appeal has been filed.”
3 The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal as being defective for non-payment of the pre-deposit. According to the Appellate Authority, the 10 percent pre-deposit could only be paid by utilizing the cash ledger as per Section 49(3) of the CGST/BGST Act read with Rule 85(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules/Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules (CGST/BGST Rules), 2017.
4 Since the petitioners have not paid the sum equal to 10 percent of the amount of tax in dispute under Section 107(6) of the CGST/BGST Act by utilizing cash ledger, the Appellate Authority has held that the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit was not complied with for maintaining the appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST/BGST Act.
5 There is one additional fact in the case of M/s Sanyog Construction Pvt Ltd. (CWJC No. 2291 of 2023). In this case, the appeal has also been held to be barred by limitation specified under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, which provides three months period for filing of appeal. As per Sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act, if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within this period, it may be allowed to present the appeal within a further period of one month.
6 The brief facts of the three cases are as follows:
CWJC No. 1848 of 2023
7 The petitioner is a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST Act. Upon scrutiny of the returns filed by it for the financial year, 2017-18, it was observed that it had availed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) in violation of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act.
8 The scrutiny resulted in initiation of proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act on 24-8-2022. The proceeding was initiated on the ground of mismatch of ITC claimed by the petitioner in its form GSTR-3B for the period July 2017 to March 2018; when compared with the ITC available in the auto-populated form GSTR-2A generated for the period.
9 After taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner, an order dated 24-09-2022 was passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act. The petitioner’s liability was thus determined at Rs. 63,92,183/- (Tax Rs. 58,11,076/- + Penalty @ 10 percent, Rs. 5,81,107/-). A demand for this amount was raised in the prescribed form GST DRC-07 dated 24-9-2022. The tax liability comprised of CGST/BGST as also Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST).
10 Aggrieved by such determination and demand made by the office of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the BGST Act in the prescribed form. The entire amount of tax determined by the Joint Commissioner was disputed by the petitioner.
11 The petitioner claims to have made the pre-deposit 10 percent for maintaining its appeal in respect of the remaining amount of BGST and IGST in dispute by debiting his ECRL. The requisite pre-deposit 10 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute under CGST, however, has been deposited by utilising Electronic Cash Ledger (“ECL” for short).
12 The Appeal has been rejected on 04.01.2023 by the Appellate Authority as being defective since payment of pre-deposit 10 percent of the disputed amount under the BGST and IGST was done by debiting its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECRL), instead of paying it from the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL), which was in contravention of Section 49(3) of the BGST Act read with Rule 85(4) of the BGST Rules.
CWJC No. 2291 of 2023
13 The petitioner is a company engaged in civil construction activities. It purchased vehicle/s from two vendors who were registered dealers in motor vehicle. The vehicles were purchased in the month of October 2017 and December 2017. Petitioner claimed ITC in respect of purchase of vehicles from the two vendors for the financial year 2017-18. The authorities held that the vehicles were to be used for the purposes which were not in furtherance of its business. By order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Office of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner was thus held to be disqualified to avail the ITC on purchase of the vehicles in terms of Section 17(5) of the Act. Accordingly, a demand for Rs. 11,36,576/- was thus raised under Section 73 of the Act, requiring the petitioner to make payment within a month, of the amount of excess ITC claimed.
14 The petitioner preferred an appeal on 14.11.2022, under Section 107 of the Act, against the order dated 12.07.2022, beyond the maximum period of limitation specified in Section 107(1) and (4) of the Act.
15 The appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 10-1-2023 on two grounds. The first ground is belated filing of the appeal and as such barred by limitation under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act. Another ground for rejecting the appeal is that the petitioner in this case also claimed to have discharged the requisite payment of a sum equal to 10 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute by debiting his ECRL, which as per the Appellate Authority could not be done in view of the provisions contained in Section 49(3) of the BGST/CGST Act read with Rule 85(4) of the BGST/CGST Rules.
CWJC No. 2606 of 2023
16 This petitioner is also a registered entity, but engaged in construction and maintenance of telecommunication towers and leasing the same to telecommunication service providers. In respect of some purchase of capital goods and input tax services, he claimed ITC to the tune of Rs. 39,02,97,872/-. The petitioner was served with notice under Section 73(1) of the Act. The petitioner responded to the same. After the petitioner’s response, the assessing authority passed a detailed order under Section 73(9) read with Section 50(3) of the Act whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s tax liability was determined at Rs. 72,60,43,298/-, interest at Rs. 25,86,83,796/- and penalty at Rs. 7,26,04,328/-. The total liability of the petitioner was thus determined at Rs. 1,05,73,31,422/-. This petitioner also claims to have satisfied the requirement by paying a sum equal to 10 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, for maintaining its appeal under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act, by debiting its ECRL.
17 The appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 4-2-2023, again by holding that the appeal is defective since the petitioner claimed to have satisfied the requirement of paying the pre-deposit of 10 percent for maintaining its appeal under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act by debiting of ECRL instead of utilising the ECL. Deposit has been found to be in contravention of Section 73(9) of the BGST Act read with Rule 85(4) of the BGST Rules, 2017.
SUBMISSIONS:-
18 Having noted the individual facts of the cases, this Court would proceed to consider the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No. 1848 of 2023 has made his submissions. Mr Shashwat Pratyush, learned counsel has made submissions on behalf of petitioner in CWJC No. 2291 of 2023. Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned senior counsel has argued on behalf of petitioner in CWJC No. 2606 of 2023. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP-7 and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned SC-11, has addressed the Court on behalf of State. Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General has represented the Union of India, assisted by senior Standing Counsel, CGST, Mr. Anshuman Singh.
19 It is submitted by Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in CWJC No. 1848 of 2023, that the impugned order is contrary to and in violation of the binding Circulars as well as judgments of other Hon’ble High Courts.
20 The issue regarding utilisation of amount in the ECRL stands concluded with the issuance of the Circular bearing No. 172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIT&C) under Section 168 of the Act. The same clarifies that payment towards output tax, whether self assessed in the returns and payable as a consequence of any proceedings instituted under the provisions of GST laws can be made by utilization of amount available in the ECRL of a registered person. The said Circular was adopted by the respondent-State of Bihar which issued a Circular dated 14.09.2022. The Circular dated 06.07.2022, therefore, issued in terms of the Section 168 of the GST Act is binding on the respondent authorities.
21 The requisite pre-deposit for maintaining appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST is nothing but 10 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute payable as a consequence of orders passed under Section 73 of the CGST/BGST Act. The petitioner has paid this 10 percent of the disputed amount of tax by debiting its ECRL for maintaining the appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST/BGST Act, as per the two circulars (supra).
22 The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also relied on decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Oasis Realty vs. the Union of India & Ors reported in (2023) 3 Centax (Bombay), wherein it was held that a party can pay 10 percent of the disputed tax either using ECL or ECRL. Similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Tulsi Ram and Company vs. Commissioner, reported in (2022) 1 Centax 26 (All.), wherein it was held that the Appellate Authority can not insist on making payment of disputed tax through ECL only.
23 The learned senior counsel further submits that one of the grounds taken for sustaining rejection of the petitioner’s appeal that ITC cannot be reversed towards payment of output liability is a new ground, which was not a ground taken in the order passed by the adjudicating authority nor in the impugned order of the appellate authority. The artificial distinction between payment of output tax and tax payable towards excess ITC claimed by the assessee is nothing more than a technical plea relying on Section 49(3) of the CGST/BGST Act and is unsustainable. The CGST Act/Rules do not contain any prohibition on debiting of the ECRL for the payment in question. On the contrary, there are several provisions providing for reversal of such ITC such as Section 16(4), Section 17 read with Rules 42 and 43, Section 17(4), Section 17(5), Rule 44, etc. The reasoning that a reversal could not be made is thus contrary to the provisions of CGST Act/Rules, ignoring the fact that amount of excess ITC becomes part of output tax of the person.
24 This issue has also been settled by “INSTRUCTION” dated 28.10.2022 issued by the CBIT&C.
25 The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 159 under similar circumstances has held that credit under the erstwhile MODVAT scheme was “as good as tax paid”. Thus, where the deposit is made using credit from ECRL, it ought to be considered as payment of tax.
26 It is further submitted that recovery of any ITC wrongly availed or utilised can only be done by adding the amount of excess ITC to the output tax liability. In the instant case, the demand under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act is on account of alleged excess ITC claimed by the petitioner, which was sought to be reversed as tax being part of the output tax liability of the petitioner. Reversal of excess ITC is a statutorily permissible method of discharging liability under the Act.
27 The stand of the respondent authority that ineligible ITC was being used by the petitioner for payment of 10 percent of the disputed tax amount, is also without any basis, apart from being contrary to the record of the present case. The ITC balance in the petitioner’s ECRL on the date of filing of appeal was Rs. 1,01,68,205/- (One crore one lakh sixty-eight thousand two hundred and five rupees) whereas the disputed ITC determined under Section 73(9) of the CGST/BGST Act as tax payable, was only Rs. 58,11,076/- (Fifty-eight lakhs eleven thousand seventy-six rupees). Thus, there was sufficient balance available in the ECRL of the petitioner for making payment of 10 percent of the disputed tax amount of Rs. 5,81,107/- (Five lakhs eighty-one thousand one hundred and seven rupees).
28 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, reported in 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 30 (Guj.), decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Akshay Steel Works Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI, reported in 2014 (304) ELT 518 (Jhar) and decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1999 (106) ELT 3.
29 Learned senior counsel further submits that pre-deposit of 10 percent is nothing but 10 percent of tax. The disputed tax amount thus gets reduced to this extent of 10 percent, from the liability, and is to be indicated in the liability register mentioned in Rule 85 of the CGST/BGST Rules.
30 Perusal of Form GST ALP-01 (Appeal to Appellate Authority) and Rule 108 of the CGST/BGST Rules leaves no room for doubt that pre-deposit can be made either from the ECL or the ECRL. The form contains columns providing option and facilitating indication of payment to be made through each register separately. The respondent’s contention that pre-deposit 10 percent cannot be made through ECRL was thus unsustainable and contrary to the statute/Rules, read with the statutory form.
31 The last submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is in violation of the principle of natural justice, since no notice or show-cause was issued with respect to the alleged defect based on which the appeal has been rejected. The impugned order is thus also liable to be set-aside for being violation of principle of natural justice.
32 Mr. Shashwat Pratyush, learned counsel appearing in CWJC No. 2291 of 2023 has adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Gulati with respect to the issue regarding the legitimacy of pre-deposit of 10 percent amount by debiting ECRL for maintaining appeal as per Section 107(6) of the CGST/BGST Act.
33 There is another aspect in this case regarding appeal being barred by delay. The delayed filing of appeal is admitted by the petitioner in paragraph-8 of the writ petition. However, it is submitted that the same is occasioned due to the fault of Respondent No. 3, who did not provide the certified copy within time. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in submission of the appeal is nothing but a technicality and based on such delay, the petitioner’s right for consideration of its appeal cannot be defeated. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on notification No. 26/2022, issued by the CBIT&C on 26-12-2022, the same is a beneficial and curative circular apropos Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, in respect of the date to be considered as the date of filing of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/BGST Act. Benefits of the curative and beneficial notification are required to be extended to the petitioner.
34 Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner in CWJC No. 2606 of 2023, having adopted the submissions advanced by learned Senior counsel, Mr. Gulati, has, in addition thereto, relied upon two other judgments to sustain pre-deposit 10 percent under Section 107 (6) of the CGST/BGST Act, by debit of ECRL. He has relied upon judgments of the Orissa High Court in Ranjan Naik [WP (C) 10203 of 2023] and Kiran Motors [WP (C) 22817 of 2023]. He has also relied upon a judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [WP Nos. 24577 and 24579 of 2023]. He has also laid emphasis on circular dated 6-72022, noted above to submit that from the orders impugned, it is obvious that the respondents have relied upon serial No. 6 of the circular which is inapplicable to the issue. The provision relied upon only clarifies the taxes under GST Laws which are payable from ECRL. It only excludes tax payable on reverse charge basis. In the instant case, the pre-deposit of 10 percent sought to be paid by debiting ECRL is not in relation to any tax payable on “reverse charge mechanism”. Therefore, the reliance on the circular dated 6-7-2022 (supra) by the respondents is untenable.
35 Learned Advocate General, on the other hand, has submitted that for filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act, pre-deposit of a sum equal to 10 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute was required to be done by utilising the ECL. The same was impermissible by debiting the ECRL. He has submitted that the demand in the instant case has arisen on account of excess claim of ITC by the petitioners in violation of Section 16(2) of the GST Act. Thus, demand was raised under Section 73(9) of the GST Act. The amount to be paid is not in the nature of output tax as defined under Section 2(82) of the CGST/BGST Act.
36 Though output tax and input tax both fall under the purview of tax, these two provisions are mutually exclusive terms. As per Section 2(82) of the CGST/BGST Act, output tax is charged on taxable supply of goods or services made “by the assessee” or his agent. On the other hand, input tax, as per Section 2(62) of the CGST/BGST Act, is tax charged on any supply of goods or services “to the assessee” which is apparent from a bare reading of Section 2(62) and Section 2(82) of the CGST/BGST Act, which reads as follows:-
“2. Definitions.–(62) “input tax” in relation to a registered person, means the central tax, State tax, integrated tax or Union territory tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both made to him and includes-
(a) the integrated goods and services tax charged on import of goods;
(b) the tax payable under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 9;
(c) the tax payable under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act;
(d) the tax payable under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 9 of the respective State Goods and Services Tax Act; or
(e) the tax payable under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 7 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act,
but does not include the tax paid under the composition levy;
2. Definitions.–(82) “output tax” in relation to a taxable person, means the tax chargeable under this Act on taxable supply of goods or services or both made by him or by his agent but excludes tax payable by him on reverse charge basis;”
37 Both the taxes thus apparently operate in different fields and are definitively mutually exclusive. The scheme of the Act also as apparent from plain reading of Section 49 of the CGST/BGST Act, maintains this distinction between input tax and output tax. It is only for payment of output tax that there is a provision for availing the amount lying in the ECRL. This distinction is also clear from bare perusal of Rule 85(4) and 86 of the BGST/CGST Rules, 2017.
38 The amount of pre-deposit 10 percent for availing appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST/BGST Act can be paid only under Section 49(3) of the CGST/BGST Act. In view of the statutory prescriptions such as Sections 49, 49-A & 49-B of the CGST/BGST Act, governing utilisation of balance in ECRL, any other mode for utilisation of the balance in ECRL or ECL would stand prohibited.
39 The law in this regard is clear that where a statute provides the thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Essar Power Ltd. reported in (2008) 4 SCC 755. It is also submitted that the purpose of statutory appeal will be defeated, if the assesses are allowed to utilize credits lying in the ECRL, when the amounts claimed as ITC has already been held to be in excess of the entitlement of an assessee.
40 It is further submitted that the clarifications issued by the CBIT&C vide Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST dated 6th July 2022 contains no clarification to the effect that payment of pre-deposit for appeal in question, can be made by utilising claimed input tax credit lying in the ECRL. On the contrary, the clarifications merely reiterate the provisions of Section- 49 of the CGST/BGST Act and clearly states that payment towards output tax only can be made by utilizing ECRL.
41 It is submitted that the ratio of the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High court in Oasis Realty (CWJC 23507/12287/12457 of 2022) is not applicable in the instant case as the factual premise in the said decision is not applicable in the instant case. The disputed amount payable therein was towards output tax which is not the case in the present writ proceedings.
42 It is submitted further, that the ratio of the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High court in M/s Tulsi Ram and Company (supra) is not applicable in these cases as the factual matrix is different. In the said case, in fact the petitioner Firm had already made deposit through cash ledger. In fact none of the judgements relied upon by the petitioners is an authority to sustain their submission that pre-deposit 10 percent for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act can be done by debiting ECRL.
43 It is submitted that order of the Appellate Authority in the present three cases insofar as it has held the appeal to be defective for non-deposit of a sum equal to 10 percent, of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the order under appeal, from the ECL does not require any interference by this court. These applications are thus devoid of merit and fit to be rejected.
CONSIDERATION:-
44 On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsels representing the parties, the court would find that the main issue in the three writ proceedings is whether by debiting ECRL, an assessee can claim to have satisfied the requirement of pre-deposit of a sum equal to 10 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute as per the order under appeal, for maintaining appeal as per Section 107 (6) of the CGST/BGST Act.
45 In this connection, one of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners regarding payment of pre-deposit (10 percent) by debiting ECRL being valid in terms of the CBIT&C circular dated 06.07.2022 (supra), reiterated and adopted in totality by the State Government vide circular dated 14.09.2022 (supra), has to be considered with reference to the relevant extract of the clarifications issued. Relevant clarifications regarding “Utilisation of amounts available in electronic credit ledger and the electronic cash ledger for payment of tax and other liabilities”, as contained at issue No. 6, 7 and 8 of the circular dated 06.07.2022, reads as follows:-
