Pre-deposit under GST includes tax paid under protest against the disputed demand, removing any further deposit requirement.

An amount of tax paid under protest for the disputed period had to be counted toward the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act because it related to the very liability under challenge and there was no statutory exclusion. Applying strict construction of the deposit condition, the Court treated the protested payment as satisfying the pre-deposit requirement on a prima facie basis, and the amount already deposited exceeded the prescribed threshold. Accordingly, no further pre-deposit was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount of tax collected and paid under protest during the period of disputed liability was liable to be taken into account while determining compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The amount paid under protest was not disputed as a matter of fact, and it related to the very period covered by the adjudicated demand. The Court applied the principle that a taxing provision imposing a deposit condition must be construed strictly, and relied on the view that an amount already paid towards the disputed liability cannot be ignored in the absence of a statutory exclusion. On that prima facie assessment, the payment under protest was required to be counted towards the statutory pre-deposit, and the deposited amount exceeded the prescribed threshold.

Conclusion: The payment under protest was to be adjusted against the pre-deposit requirement, and no further deposit under Section 107(6)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was required.

---