The Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the appellate authority in rejecting the Petitioner’s contention that the ECRL could be debited for the purposes of making the payment of pre-deposit. The Court finds no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Maintainability of petition— In the instant case, writ petitions are filed to challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 107 (1) and holding that the appeals filed are defective since the Petitioner herein had made payment of the pre-deposit being 10% of the disputed amount under the IGST, CGST and SGST by debiting its electronic credit ledger (ECRL) and did not pay it from the electronic cash ledger (ECL) and furnished the proof of payment of the mandatory pre-deposit and that this was in contravention of Section 49(3) of the CGST Act.
The contentions of the Petitioner is that under Section 49 (4) of the OGST Act, the amount available in the ECRL could be used for making "any payment towards output tax” under the CGST Act or the IGST Act “in such manner and subject to such conditions and within such time as may be prescribed”.
The Court does not find the above decision to be helpful to the Petitioner. It is not possible to accept the plea of the Petitioner that “Output Tax”, as defined under Section 2 (82) of the OGST Act could be equated to the pre-deposit required to be made in terms of Section 107 (6) of the OGST Act.
The Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the appellate authority in rejecting the Petitioner’s contention that the ECRL could be debited for the purposes of making the payment of pre-deposit.
Held that— The Court finds no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
The Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the appellate authority in rejecting the Petitioner’s contention that the ECRL could be debited for the purposes of making the payment of pre-deposit. The Court finds no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Maintainability of petition— In the instant case, writ petitions are filed to challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 107 (1) and holding that the appeals filed are defective since the Petitioner herein had made payment of the pre-deposit being 10% of the disputed amount under the IGST, CGST and SGST by debiting its electronic credit ledger (ECRL) and did not pay it from the electronic cash ledger (ECL) and furnished the proof of payment of the mandatory pre-deposit and that this was in contravention of Section 49(3) of the CGST Act.
The contentions of the Petitioner is that under Section 49 (4) of the OGST Act, the amount available in the ECRL could be used for making "any payment towards output tax” under the CGST Act or the IGST Act “in such manner and subject to such conditions and within such time as may be prescribed”.
The Court does not find the above decision to be helpful to the Petitioner. It is not possible to accept the plea of the Petitioner that “Output Tax”, as defined under Section 2 (82) of the OGST Act could be equated to the pre-deposit required to be made in terms of Section 107 (6) of the OGST Act.
The Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the appellate authority in rejecting the Petitioner’s contention that the ECRL could be debited for the purposes of making the payment of pre-deposit.
Held that— The Court finds no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.