the essay of 13 October 2021 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<div align="center">
<p align="justify"><font color="#663366" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>OCTOBER 13, 2021</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GST Appeals - Can Pre-deposit be paid from Credit Ledger? </strong>
</font>
</p>
</div>
<p align="center"><u><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>By Vijay Kumar</strong></font></u></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FOR</STRONG> a First Appeal to be filed before the Appellate Authority, as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, the appellant has to pay - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a) in full, admitted amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty; and </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b) a sum equal to ten per cent. of the remaining amount of tax in dispute subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees, in relation to the appeal. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Similarly for an appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal, under Section 112, the appellant has to pay - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a) in full, admitted amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, and </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b) a sum equal to twenty per cent. of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount paid for the first appeal, subject to a maximum of fifty crore rupees, in relation to the appeal. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, the appellant has to make a pre-deposit of about one-third of the tax demanded. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">How to pay this pre-deposit? Can the credit in the electronic credit ledger be utilised for payment of this deposit? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This problem is as old as the original modvat credit. Just like the electronic cash ledger and credit ledger now, there was a Personal Ledger Account - PLA (the cash ledger) and a RG-23 Part-II (the credit ledger). Then also the question arose whether the pre-deposit for an appeal to the Tribunal could be made from the credit register. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <em>Haryana State Electricity Board V Collector of C. Ex., New Delhi - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 588 (Tribunal)</em>, the CEGAT, (as the CESTAT was then called) allowed the applicant's prayer for payment of pre-deposit by debit in <a>RG 23 Part II. </a> The Tribunal held that the amount may be paid either by debit or by PLA or by cash. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <em>Jhalani Tools (I) Ltd. V Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 105 (Tribunal), </em> the Tribunal held that the appellants will be at liberty to pay the pre-deposit by adjustment in PLA/<a>RG 23 Part II. </a></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <em>Birla Yamaha Ltd. V Collector of Central Excise, Meerut </em> -
<strong><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2002/2002-TIOL-456-CESTAT-DEL-SB.htm" target="_blank">2002-TIOL-456-CESTAT-DEL-SB</a></strong>, a Larger Bench of the Tribunal held: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>It is true that what is required to be done at this stage is deposit under the statute and what can be given credit to for the Modvat amount is duty. If the appellant had not filed the appeal, he should certainly be given credit for the amount of duty out of the Modvat credit to the extent of the Modvat credit. The effect of filing of appeal cannot be that he is temporarily deprived of the right to adjustment out of the Modvat credit and should deposit the amount over again. That would amount to a double payment in the sense the amount lying to his credit continues to lie in the account and he has to make a cash deposit. The statutory provision regarding deposit came into existence long before the Modvat credit system was introduced. With the introduction of the Modvat, the statutory provision of deposit has to be understood in the light of the Modvat system. That being so, it appears reasonable to hold that to the extent of credit available in the Modvat credit account, it will be possible for the appellant before the Tribunal to get credit by temporary adjustment to the extent to which adjustment can be made. This is what the Tribunal did in the cases earlier.. </em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <em>Manak Moti Forgings Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad </em>- <strong><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2010/2010-TIOL-1863-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank">2010-TIOL-1863-CESTAT-MUM</a></strong>, the appellate authority directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh. The appellant debited the amount in their MODVAT account and claimed that they had complied with the direction for pre-deposit under Section 35F. The appellate authority did not accept this to be 'due compliance' with Section 35F. He took the view that the above amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh should have been deposited through TR-6 challan. On this basis, the assessee's appeal came to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the matter reached the CESTAT.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Tribunal - <strong><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2010/2010-TIOL-1863-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank">2010-TIOL-1863-CESTAT-MUM</a></strong> observed, <em>"we are of the view that pre-deposit of the duty amount by way of debit in MODVAT account can be accepted as sufficient compliance with Section 35F and, therefore, the assessee need not be called upon to make any payment towards penalty through TR-6 challan.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CESTAT registry had issued a Circular - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/cestat_order/circular_14_15.htm" target="_blank">in F. No. 15/CESTAT/General/2013-14, Dated:August 28, 2014 </a> clarifying that if mandatory deposit is made from CENVAT account, appeal will be registered. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In Manaksia Ltd. V Commissioner Of Central Excise, Haldia- 2017 (354) E.L.T. 415 (Tri. Kolkata), the Tribunal observed, </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Similarly, in the case of demand of duty, if Cenvat credit is permissible for payment of tax, the same can always be debited from Cenvat Account of an assessee. As per procedure followed by CESTAT Registry at Kolkata, payments made from Cenvat Credit Account are considered as due payments for considering as deposit under Section 35F(ii) and (iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. First Appellate Authority could have a view if debit of mandatory deposit was with respect to personal penalty or payment of interest. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In view of the above observations, the view taken by the First Appellate Authority, that deposit under Section 35F(i) cannot be made from Cenvat Credit Account, is not the correct appreciation of law so long as the Cenvat credit is permissible for utilisation as per Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Gujarat High Court in the case of CADILA HEALTH CARE PVT LTD - <strong><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTM4NDE1" target="_blank">2018-TIOL-1236-HC-AHM-CX</a></strong> held -</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>"Pre-deposit made by the petitioners by availing cenvat credit shall be accepted for the purpose of section 35F of the Central Excise Act."</em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the understanding so far may be that the money in the Electronic Credit Ledger can be used for making the huge mandatory deposits under the GST laws. Logically and logistically it sounds good too. No more. The Orissa High Court last week held otherwise. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If credit is available in the credit ledger, what is the problem in allowing it to be used for pre-deposit? Or why should a taxpayer pay cash when credit is available in his account? And if tax can be paid from the credit ledger, why not deposit, which is after all a temporary payment and the taxpayer can claim refund if he wins the case, which he would in most cases. After all credit is also money already paid to the government. Well, that is the trick - the money in your credit account is already with the government and must have already been spent. For our welfare, the government needs more money and how will more money come if audacious assessees choose to file appeals and use the credit for pre-deposit? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CGST laws contain some interesting provisions: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. The credit shall be utilised </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"sans-serif" style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">only </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">for payment of self- assessed output tax - Section 41(2) </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. The amount available in the electronic cash ledger may be used for making any payment towards tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder in such manner and subject to such conditions and within such time as may be prescribed - Section 49(3) </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. The amount available in the electronic credit ledger may be used for making any payment towards output tax under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. - Section 49(4) </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. The amount deducted under section 51, or the amount collected under section 52, or the amount payable on reverse charge basis, or the amount payable under section 10, any amount payable towards interest, penalty, </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"sans-serif" style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">fee or any other amount under the Act </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">shall be paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger maintained as per rule 87 and the electronic liability register shall be credited accordingly. - Rule 85(4) </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does this give an impression that the GST laws never intended to allow payment of pre-deposit from the credit ledger? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#990000">Orissa High Court Judgement last Wednesday</font> - </strong><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTY4NTY5" target="_blank"><strong>2021-TIOL-2007-HC-ORISSA-GST</strong></a>: The High Court held:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. It is not possible to accept the plea of the Petitioner that "Output Tax", could be equated to the pre-deposit required to be made. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Further, Section 41 (2) limits the usage to which the ECRL could be utilised. It cannot be debited for making payment of pre-deposit at the time of filing of the appeal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. It is not therefore possible to accept the plea that Section 107 (6) of the Act is merely a "machinery provision". </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. It is not possible in the present case to equate the output tax payable to the amount of pre-deposit required to be made. There is world of difference between an amount which is refundable and an amount which is liable to be paid as output tax. Here there is no amount refundable to the Petitioner which could be utilized for making of payment of the pre-deposit. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. The Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the appellate authority in rejecting the Petitioner's contention that the electronic credit ledger ( ECRL) could be debited for the purposes of making the payment of pre-deposit.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interestingly in <em>Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax - </em><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTQ1MTE4" target="_blank"><strong>2019-TIOL-286-CESTAT-BANG</strong></a>, the CESTAT allowed pre-deposit in a <strong>service tax </strong> case to be made from <strong>CGST </strong> Credit!</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">GST Appellate Tribunal is yet to start functioning, but before that we have to settle this issue. The only way is for the Government to amend the laws and/or clarify that payment from the Credit Ledger is as good as from cash ledger. Otherwise, taxpayers will have to run around to organise cash to pay the already backbreaking deposit in the tribunal while credit in their account will lie useless.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the meanwhile, what will happen if another High Court holds that the amounts in the Credit Ledger can be used for payment of pre-deposit? It's the same route - Supreme Court followed by retrospective amendment.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Government is the final authority and so has to be fair, reasonable and benevolent.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cash or credit, it's money, honey!</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Until Next Week. </strong></font></p>
</body>
</html>