Pre-deposit of 10% via Electronic Credit Ledger (ITC) is valid; Appeal restoration ordered

Issue

Whether the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% required for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act can be validly paid by debiting the Electronic Credit Ledger (ITC), or if it must be paid only in cash.

Facts

The Appeal: The petitioner, aggrieved by an Order-in-Original, filed a statutory appeal within the limitation period.
Mode of Payment: To satisfy the mandatory pre-condition for filing the appeal, the petitioner paid the 10% pre-deposit by debiting their Electronic Credit Ledger (utilizing available ITC).
Rejection: The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the pre-deposit could not be made through ITC, treating the payment as invalid.
Petitioner’s Defense: The petitioner invoked Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST, which clarified that amounts available in the credit ledger can be used for making payments towards output tax and other liabilities, arguing this covers pre-deposits.

Decision

Circular & Precedent: The High Court observed that Circular No. 171/03/2022 and settled legal precedents explicitly recognize that the mandatory pre-deposit can be validly made by utilizing the balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Error by Authority: The Appellate Authority fell in error by treating the ITC payment as invalid and refusing to hear the appeal on merits.
Ruling: The impugned dismissal order was set aside. The matter was remitted (sent back) to the Appellate Authority with a direction to treat the ITC debit as a valid deposit and decide the appeal on its merits.

Key Takeaways

ITC is as good as Cash for Pre-deposit: This judgment reinforces that taxpayers are not required to block their working capital by paying the 10% pre-deposit in cash if they have sufficient balance in their Electronic Credit Ledger.

Circular 172/04/2022: While the text mentions Circular 171, Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST (Clarification on various issues) is the specific circular that clarified that “Output Tax” includes tax payable as a consequence of any proceeding, thus allowing ITC use for pre-deposits.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Lenovo India (P.) Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Tax

S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.

WRIT PETITION NO. 22168 OF 2023 (T-RES)

OCTOBER 31, 2025

L.S. Karthikeyan, Adv. for the Petitioner. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction quashing the Annexure-J Order-in-Appeal No.148/2023 bearing no./A/No.161/2022 COMMNR GST-A.I dated 13.04.2023 passed by Respondent and direct Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner on merits.

(ii) Issue such other order or direction or grant such other relief as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that aggrieved by the impugned order-in-original dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation on 06.06.2022 before the Appellate Authority by making payment of 10% of the tax amount in terms of Section 107(6) of the CGST Act by utilizing the ITC available in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though Circular No.171/03/2022 dated 06.07.2022 confirms the petitioner to make payment towards 10% for the purpose of filing the appeal by utilizing ITC available in the electronic ledger, the Appellate Authority proceeded to dismiss the appeal without entering upon the merits on the sole ground that the petitioner was not entitled to make said payment utilizing the electronic ledger, which is contrary to the aforesaid Circular and judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Yasho Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (Gujarat)/(2024) 24 Centax 338 (Guj), which is confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Yasho Industries Ltd. (SC)/(2025) 30 Centax 352 (SC) as hereunder:

“Delay condoned.

2. In Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.25437/2023 and 324/2024, the Assessees have preferred the petitions before this Court which have been entertained. When the Revenue has preferred Special Leave Petition (C) D.NO.508/2025, reliance has been placed on the fact that the Assessees petitions have been entertained by this Court and therefore on that basis notices were issued in the case of Chief Commissioner of CGST and C.E. and Anr. v. M/s. Shiv Crackers.

3. Today, Shri Abhishek A Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent/Caveator has brought to out notice the fact that initially notices were issued by this Court in the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Assessees. The respondent(s) ought not to have relied upon those cases for the purpose of seeking notice(s) in their Petitions also. In the circumstances, he submitted that there is no merit in this special leave petition. He also brought to out notice the fact of the Rule 96(10)of the CGST has been deleted in the year 2024.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/Department. The Department’s contention is that since similar matters are pending before this Court, this case also may be tagged with those cases.

5. As already noted, the aforesaid cases initially filed before this Court are of the Assessees and not of the Department. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order passed by the High Court in R/SCA No.10504/2023 would not call for any interference. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

6. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.”

4. As held by the Gujarat High Court and confirmed by the Apex Court, the appellate Authority clearly fell in error in holding that the petitioner has not made valid deposit and without appreciating that it is permissible in law for the petitioner to make payment/deposit by utilizing ITC available in the electronic credit ledger, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.03.2022. Under these circumstances and in the light of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh, on merits by treating the deposit made by the petitioner as a valid deposit and to proceed further in accordance with law.

5. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i)

The petition is allowed.

(ii)

The impugned order at Annexure-J is hereby set aside.

(iii)

The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, while treating the amount already deposited by the petitioner by way of utilizing the ITC in the electronic credit ledger as a valid deposit and proceed further, in accordance with law.