GST appeal pre-deposit must be paid through the cash ledger, not the electronic credit ledger, the Court held.

The statutory pre-deposit for a GST appeal under Section 107(6) of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could not be discharged by debiting the electronic credit ledger, because the GST scheme distinguishes utilisation of input tax credit from payment through the electronic cash ledger and does not permit credit ledger use for appeal pre-deposit. The appellate authority was therefore correct in treating the appeal as defective for non-compliance. The request to reverse the credit-ledger debit and then pay through the cash ledger was a separate cause of action and had to be pursued independently; no relief was granted on that aspect in the writ petitions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory pre-deposit required for filing a GST appeal under Section 107(6) of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be discharged by debiting the electronic credit ledger instead of the electronic cash ledger. (ii) Whether the request to reverse the debit entry in the electronic credit ledger and then make payment through the electronic cash ledger required independent relief in the present proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory pre-deposit required for filing a GST appeal under Section 107(6) of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be discharged by debiting the electronic credit ledger instead of the electronic cash ledger.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between utilisation of the electronic credit ledger and payment to be made from the electronic cash ledger. The expression "output tax" could not be equated with the appeal pre-deposit mandated by Section 107(6). The permissible use of credit under Section 41(2), read with Section 49(4) and the relevant rules, did not extend to payment of the appeal pre-deposit. The Court therefore rejected the contention that Section 107(6) was merely a machinery provision that allowed such discharge through the electronic credit ledger.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit could not be validly made by debiting the electronic credit ledger, and the appellate authority was correct in treating the appeal as defective on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the request to reverse the debit entry in the electronic credit ledger and then make payment through the electronic cash ledger required independent relief in the present proceedings.

Analysis: The reversal of the debit entry was treated as a separate cause of action. The Court held that such relief, if available, had to be pursued independently in accordance with law and did not affect the validity of the impugned rejection of the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Conclusion: No relief was granted on this aspect in the writ petitions.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the GST appeals failed because the statutory pre-deposit could not be satisfied through the electronic credit ledger, and the ancillary request for reversal of the debit entry was left to be pursued separately.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST appeal pre-deposit required by statute must be made only in the manner permitted by the GST credit and payment mechanism, and statutory input tax credit cannot be used for a payment outside the authorised scope of utilisation.

---