24.09.2026 ct no. 10 Sl. 07 AGM WPA 10935 of 2026 Ganesh Prasad -Versus- Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Budge Budge Charge and Ors. Mr. Souradeep Majumdar. …for the petitioner. Mr. Shib Sankar Banerjee. Mr. K.K.Maity. … for the CGST Authorities. Mr. Susanta Dutta. Mr. Bijoy Bag. … for the State. 1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the action of the respondent authorities in recovering the entire tax demand remaining after payment of 10% pre-deposit prior to filing of appeal before respondent no. 2, from the Electronic Cash Ledger, which is arbitrary, illegal and in excess of jurisdiction and is impermissible in law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs. 3,19,164/- has been debited/recovered from the petitioner’s Electronic Cash Ledger on 21.01.2026 against a demand for the tax period 2018-19. 3. It is further submitted that a demand of tax of Rs. 3,54,630/- was raised vide order date 18.01.2024. After depositing the requisite pre- deposit under Section 107 (6) and 112 (8) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, an appeal has been 2 preferred before respondent no. 2. Despite compliance, a sum of Rs. 319164 has been debited/recovered from the petitioner’s Electronic Cash Ledger on 21.1.2026. Against such illegal recovery, a representation dated 2.3.2026 was submitted before respondent no. 1 seeking recredit/refund of the excess amount. 4. The issue is squarely covered by a judgment and order dated 17.02.2026 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WPA 28120 of 2025 (M/s. Spandan Electrical –Vs.- the State of West Bengal & Ors.) relevant extract whereof is reproduced below: “ Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. Since, it is the petitioner’s contention that the petitioner has made the pre-deposit in terms of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 and therefore, no recovery ought to have been made, the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to make appropriate representation before the respondent/GST Authorities indicating to them that payment has been made by the petitioner towards satisfaction of the provisions of section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017. In case the respondent GST Authorities are satisfied that payment/deposit in terms of the provisions of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 has been made by the petitioner, the respondent GST Authorities would have to pay due respect to the provisions of Section 112 (9) of the said Act of 2017 where it has been mandated that upon payment of the sum indicated in Section 112(8) being made, recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. If payment/deposit in terms of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 has been 3 done by the petitioner, the respondent GST Authorities would refund any sum that may have been recovered by the respondent GST Authorities in excess of the amounts required to be deposited by the petitioner in terms of Section 107(6) and 112(8) of the said Act of 2017. To be precise any sum that may have been recovered from the petitioner beyond or in excess of the amounts required to be deposited by the petitioner at the two appellate stages i.e. under Section 107(6) and under Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 taken cumulatively, shall be refunded. The representation made by the petitioner in such regard shall be considered by the GST Authorities as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s representation.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the CGST Authorities takes a fair stand and submits that he has no objection to consideration and disposal of the representation dated 2.3.2026 in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the state respondent does not dispute the statutory mandate of Section 112 (9) of the said Act. 7. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference at this stage. This Court has taken judicial notice of the representation dated 2.3.2026. To balance the equities and to secure the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the said representation dated 2.3.2026 within a period of four weeks from the date of 4 communication of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The decision so taken shall be communicated within a week thereafter. 8. If it is found that any amount has been recovered in excess of the cumulative pre-deposits required under Section 107 (6) and Section 112 (8) of the said of the 2017, the same shall be refunded/recredited to the electronic cash Credit Ledger of the petitioner in view of section 112 (9) of the Act, 2017. 9. However, it is made clear that the respondent no. 1 shall not be influenced by any observations shall take an independent decision in accordance with law. 10. The petitioner shall not take any unnecessary adjournments before the respondent no.1. 11. With the above observations and directions, the W.P.A. 10935 of 2026 is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Smita Das De, J.)