2024 (12) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Petitioner : Shri Mukesh Agrawal and Shri Ayush Gupta - Advocates For the Respondents/State : Shri R.D. Padraha - Government Advocate ORDER PER: JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 1. Issue notice. 2. Notice is accepted by the counsel appearing for respondents. 3. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n that the Tribunal is not functioning. He submits that by way of coercive measures, the Electronic Credit Ledger has been blocked and bank account of the petitioner has been put on hold. 6. Learned counsel submits that in terms of Section 112 of the Act, 2017, petitioner is liable to pay 20% of the tax amount i.e. Rs. 4,54,574.06/-. Reliance is placed on Circular dated 11.07.2024 issued by Cen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erations. 8. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is willing to deposit the statutory pre-deposit amount. 9. We note that the demand created against the petitioner of the tax amount of Rs. 4,54,574.06/-, 20% of which come to Rs. 90,915/-. The amount standing to the credit of the petitioner in the Electronic Credit Ledger as on 25.09.2024 was Rs. 1,14,758/- i.e. more than 20% of pre-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the pre-deposit. 11. It is clarified that petitioner should first make the pre-deposit from the Electronic Credit Ledger and that only in case petitioner makes the pre-deposit, petitioner would be permitted to operate the Electronic Credit Ledger and hold on the bank account shall be lifted. 12. It is clarified that this Court neither considered nor commented on the merit or contention of ....