Case Law Details
Spandan Electrical Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
In Spandan Electrical vs State of West Bengal & Ors., the Calcutta High Court dealt with a writ petition seeking refund of ₹2,85,636 and restoration of the balance in the electronic cash ledger. The petitioner contended that it had deposited 10% of the disputed tax in terms of Section 112(8) of the CGST/WBGST Act while challenging an appellate order dated October 14, 2025. An appeal before the Tribunal was also filed on January 5, 2026.
The petitioner argued that once the statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) was made, the GST authorities were not entitled to continue recovery proceedings based on the adjudication and appellate orders. The authorities, however, stated that they did not have instructions regarding the alleged pre-deposit.
The Court observed that the petitioner should first be given an opportunity to make a representation before the GST authorities, demonstrating that the required pre-deposit had been made. It held that if such payment is verified, the authorities must give effect to Section 112(9), which mandates that recovery of the remaining disputed amount is deemed to be stayed upon payment of the prescribed pre-deposit.
The Court further clarified that if the petitioner had deposited the required amounts under Sections 107(6) and 112(8), any recovery made beyond these statutory limits must be refunded. This includes any excess amount recovered over and above the cumulative pre-deposit requirements at both appellate stages.
The GST authorities were directed to consider the petitioner’s representation expeditiously, preferably within two weeks of its submission. The Court also permitted the authorities to seek clarifications from the petitioner for verification purposes.
The Court expressly stated that it had not examined the merits of the dispute and left it open to the authorities to take a decision based on the petitioner’s representation.
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
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.
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 pre-deposit 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 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 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.
Author Bio
