Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner contended that it had already made the statutory pre-deposit as required under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It was argued that upon such payment, recovery proceedings ought to have remained stayed in terms of Section 112(9) of the Act. Despite the alleged compliance, recovery was effected by the GST authorities. The petitioner therefore sought appropriate relief against such recovery and refund of any amount recovered in excess of the statutory pre-deposit requirements. The matter also involved consideration of the earlier pre-deposit made under Section 107(6) at the first appellate stage. 

Issue:

Whether recovery proceedings could continue despite the petitioner’s claim of having made the statutory pre-deposit under Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the CGST Act, and whether any amount recovered beyond the cumulative statutory pre-deposit requirement was liable to be refunded.

Held that:

The Court observed that since the petitioner claimed to have complied with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8), it should be afforded an opportunity to make an appropriate representation before the GST authorities demonstrating such compliance.

The Court clarified that if the petitioner has indeed deposited the amounts required under Section 107(6) and Section 112(8) cumulatively, then recovery beyond such statutory requirement would be impermissible. Any amount recovered in excess of the cumulative statutory pre-deposit at the two appellate stages must be refunded. The Court did not examine the merits of the petitioner’s claim regarding actual payment. The Court did not examine the merits of the petitioner’s claim regarding actual payment.

The GST authorities were directed to verify the petitioner’s contention and were given liberty to seek clarification or documents for verification.

Case Name: M/s. Spandan Electrical Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. dated 17.02.2026