TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Requirement of Electronic Cash Ledger for Pre-Deposit Payment</h1> <h3>M/s. Jyoti Construction Versus Deputy Commissioner of CT & GST, Barbil Circle, Jajpur and Another</h3> M/s. Jyoti Construction Versus Deputy Commissioner of CT & GST, Barbil Circle, Jajpur and Another - 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 279 (Ori.) , [2022] 96 G S.T.R. 17 ... Issues:Challenge to orders rejecting appeal due to incorrect payment method.Analysis:The judgment involves five writ petitions challenging orders rejecting appeals due to incorrect payment method under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner, a partnership firm, filed appeals against demands raised by the Deputy Commissioner resulting in extra demands for IGST, CGST, and OGST. The appeals were rejected as the Petitioner made the pre-deposit by debiting its electronic credit ledger (ECRL) instead of the electronic cash ledger (ECL) as required by Section 49(3) of the OGST Act read with Rule 85(4) of the OGST Rules. The Department issued show cause notices, leading to these petitions.The main contention of the Petitioner was that the pre-deposit could be made by debiting the ECRL based on a collective reading of relevant rules. The Petitioner argued that since the payment was a percentage of the output tax, it could be paid from the ECRL. However, the Department argued that Section 49(3) mandates payment from the ECL, and the proviso to Section 41(2) limits the usage of ECRL. The appellate authority cited legal precedents emphasizing strict compliance with statutory provisions for payment methods.The Court rejected the Petitioner's arguments, stating that the pre-deposit could not be equated to output tax and ECRL could not be used for pre-deposit payment. The Court also dismissed the reference to a Gujarat High Court judgment as not applicable to the present case. The Court found no error in the appellate authority's decision to reject the Petitioner's contentions regarding the payment method.Regarding the Petitioner's request to reverse the debit entry in the ECRL, the Court held that it was a separate issue requiring independent legal action. The Court ultimately found no merit in the writ petitions and dismissed them without costs. The judgment highlights the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions in tax matters and the limitations on utilizing electronic ledgers for specific payments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
