M/S Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited And Anr. vs The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Shibpur Charge, Wbgst And Ors.

M/s. Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited & Anr. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Shibpur Charge WBGST & Ors.

Mr. Ankit Kanodia Ms. Megha Agarwal Mr. Piyush Khaitan ... For the petitioners

Mr. Anirban Ray, GP Md. T. M. Siddiqui, AGP Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Mr. Debraj Sahu ... For the State.

1. Challenging the order passed by the proper officer

under Section 73 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and

Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "said

Act") dated 24th November, 2023, an appeal was filed

before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the

said Act.

2. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the

petitioners had also deposited the pre-deposit as is

required for maintaining the appeal.

3. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 24th

December, 2024, confirming the demand and penalty

levied by the proper officer under the said Act. 2

4. Immediately, after the said order was passed, the

petitioners had by communication in writing dated 31st

December, 2024, intimated the respondents that being

aggrieved by the order dated 24th December, 2024, the

petitioners intend to file an appeal before the Appellate

Tribunal. Since, the Appellate Tribunal has not been made

operational, the petitioners, had in terms of Section 112(8)

of the said Act read with Section 143 of the Finance (No.2)

Act 2024, made the additional mandatory pre-deposit of

10 per cent of the disputed amount of tax, constituting

Rs.17,658/- for CGST as also Rs.17,658/- for SGST.

Accordingly having regard to the circular dated 11th July,

2024 and the provisions contained in Section 112(9) of the

said Act, the petitioners had requested the respondents

not to proceed with the recovery proceeding.

5. Ms. Agarwal, learned advocate appearing on behalf

of the petitioners by placing before this Court a printout of

the electronic liability ledger for the tax period 1st

January, 2025 to 11th January, 2025, would submit that

the respondents have already in the most illegal and

arbitrary manner recovered from the petitioners, partly

from the cash ledger and partly from credit ledger an

amount of Rs.342/- and Rs.49988/- respectively

aggregating to Rs.50,330/-. She would submit that in the

facts noted hereinabove, the aforesaid recovery is bad in

law and cannot be sustained.

3

6. Mr. Ray, learned Government Pleader appears on

behalf of the State respondents. In response to a query of

the Court he would submit that although, he is yet to

receive any instruction in the matter, however, ordinarily,

if any deposit is made in terms of Section 112(8) of the

said Act and having regard to the circular dated 11th July,

2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and

Customs corresponding to West Bengal Government

Circular no. 17/2024 dated 11th September, 2024, no

further recovery is permissible at this stage.

7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties. Considering the short point involved in

the writ petition, the same is taken up for consideration.

8. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioners had

preferred an appeal from the order passed under Section

73(9) of the said Act dated 24th November, 2023 for the tax

period April, 2022 to March, 2023. From the perusal of

Form GST APL-01, it would transpire that the petitioners

had duly deposited the admitted amount of pre-deposit

i.e. Rs.35,316/-. After the appeal was dismissed a demand

was raised in Form GST APL -04. By a communication in

writing dated 31st December, 2024 which was received by

the respondent on 3rd January, 2025, the petitioners

intimated the respondents that having regard to the

provisions contained in Section 112(8) of the said Act read

with Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 its intention to prefer an 4

appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and that the

petitioners had deposited additional 10 per cent of the tax

liability, aggregating to Rs.35,316/-. The factum of

payment of the aforesaid amount would corroborate from

the copy of the electronic liability ledger annexed to the

writ petition. It would however, transpire from the copy of

the electronic liability ledger as placed before this Court

for the period 1st January, 2025 to 11th January, 2025

that a sum of Rs. Rs.342/- and Rs.49988/- aggregating to

Rs.50,330/ has been recovered from the petitioner no.1's

electronic cash ledger and electronic credit ledger

respectively and the same is in respect of the recovery

made against the demand for the tax period April, 2022 to

March 2023. However, having regard to the provisions

contained in Section 112(8) of the said Act and the fact

that that petitioners' right to prefer an appeal before the

Appellate Tribunal is subsisting which the petitioners

could not exercise by reasons of the Appellate Tribunal

not being constituted and also noting that the petitioner

had deposited 10 per cent of the additional amount of tax

in dispute in addition to the amount already deposited

while preferring the appeal under Section 107(6) of the

said Act, and with regard to the circular dated 11th

September, 2024, I am of the view that instead of seeking

response from the respondents whether any amount has

already been recovered from the petitioners in the manner

as aforesaid, the matter can be disposed of by directing 5

the respondents themselves to consider whether the

aforesaid recovery as disclosed by the petitioners through

the copy of the electronic liability ledger for the tax period

1st January, 2025 to 11th January, 2025 has been made,

and in the event it is found that the respondents have

deducted the aforesaid amount in respect of the tax period

April, 2022 to March, 2023 to forthwith recredit the same

to the respective cash/credit ledger of the petitioners so

that the same is reflected in the electronic liability ledger

of the petitioners for the month of May, 2025.

9. With the above observations and directions, without

going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)