In a landmark ruling on indirect taxation, the Supreme Court has clarified that the mandatory 10% pre-deposit required for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), may lawfully be discharged by utilizing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available in a registered person's Electronic Credit Ledger (where all credits accrued on account of inward supplies made by a taxpayer within a tax period are accumulated). In doing so, the Court has not merely resolved a procedural ambiguity, it has restored liquidity, upheld legislative intent, and reaffirmed the idea that credit is not a concession, but a right – and that procedure must facilitate justice delivery, not obstruct it.
For long, taxpayers have had to deal with the lack of clarity in the law surrounding the mode of payment for this statutorily mandated pre-deposit. The law was silent on the mode of payment, leading to varying practices and uncertainty. This ambiguity often left businesses especially MSMEs and exporters, locked in procedural bottleneck, despite having sizable ITC balances lying idle with the government.
This confusion in the interpretation was further compounded by Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST dated July 6, 2022, particularly Paragraph 7, which stated that ITC could be used only for payment of output tax (tax on outward supplies), and that any other liability including interest, penalty, fees, or "any other amount" must be paid in cash. Although the circular did not explicitly mention pre-deposit, departmental officers extended its scope to conclude that even the ten percent pre-deposit under Section 107(6) was outside the purview of ITC utilisation, thereby enforcing cash only compliance for appeal admission. That administrative reading, however, relied on a narrow and literal interpretation of the term "output tax" under Section 2(82) of the CGST Act. As per the statutory definition, output tax means - tax chargeable on taxable outward supplies of goods or services, excluding tax under reverse charge.
The department argued, that since a pre-deposit is not "tax chargeable" but merely a procedural requirement, it falls outside the scope of output tax and therefore outside the scope of Section 49(4), which permits ITC use towards output tax liability. But this approach overlooked the essential nature of the pre-deposit, i.e. that it is not a separate levy or a penal imposition, but rather a conditional part-payment of the very tax that is under appeal. To that extent, it retains the character of output tax, though one placed in legal suspense until the adjudication of the dispute. To treat it as something distinct, is to ignore the functional reality of what the deposit represents. It is, in effect, tax held in trust until the legal process determines whether the balance should be paid or refunded.
The Judicial View: Substance over Form
Recognising this reality, the Gujarat High Court, among others, adopted a purposive interpretation of the statute. It ruled, that denying ITC utilisation for pre-deposit, contradicts the foundational premise of GST – a regime that is credit-based, technology-enabled, and intended to avoid multiplicity of taxes. The High Court reasoned that credit already with the government must be available for satisfying procedural compliance, especially when no prejudice to the revenue is caused.
This approach has now been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue, thereby giving finality to the High Court's reasoning. The Court held, that the pre-deposit, being procedural in nature, cannot be equated with a fresh tax demand or a liability that requires new cash flow. ITC, being a form of tax already paid into the system, may validly serve to fulfil this obligation. In essence, the Court restored a balance between procedural rigour and practicality.
Implications for Businesses and the Appellate Framework
This ruling could not have come at a better time. With a backlog of appeals, and the soon to be functional GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on the horizon, clarity on the mode of pre-deposit strengthens the foundation of a responsive and efficient appellate mechanism. It ensures that appeals are decided on merit, and are not stalled by liquidity constraints or administrative rigidity. For businesses across the board, particularly those engaged in export, with high credit accumulation, the judgment comes as both relief and recognition.
Furthermore, the decision reorients departmental practice towards legal certainty. Taxpayers, who were earlier forced to comply under protest by making cash payments despite having sufficient ITC balances, may now explore legal options for refund or adjustment, depending on the facts and applicable limitation periods. The ruling also serves as a precedent that discourages future overreach in interpreting procedural compliance, ensuring that administrative instructions cannot override statutory entitlement.
More than a clarification, this verdict is a constitutional reminder that access to justice cannot be contingent on liquidity. The right to appeal is not a privilege but a fundamental procedural safeguard. By recognising that ITC is not merely a book-keeping adjustment but a substantive tax asset in the hands of the taxpayer, the Court has breathed life into the legislative vision of GST as a seamless, credit-driven system of indirect taxation.
Looking ahead
While the ruling settles the mode of pre-deposit, it inevitably gives rise to a consequential but unresolved issue – what happens when the appellant succeeds in appeal and the demand is set aside either wholly or partially? Under Section 54 of the CGST Act, refund of any amount paid in cash, including pre-deposit, is available subject to prescribed conditions and timelines. However, where the pre-deposit was made by debiting the Electronic Credit Ledger, there is no express provision for automatic re-credit of ITC. Since the ITC was utilised, not for discharge of final tax liability, but as a procedural deposit, its restoration upon successful appeal aligns with the doctrine of restitution. In the absence of statutory language, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) will need to either issue a clarificatory circular or evolve a system enabled mechanism to provide for such re-credit, ensuring that the benefit of the Supreme Court's ruling is not rendered illusory in practice.
An additional layer of complexity emerges where the subject matter of the appeal is the ITC itself – its eligibility, availment, or valuation. In such situations, if the appellant seeks to satisfy the 10% pre-deposit by utilising the same ITC that is under dispute, it could result in a circular and potentially problematic application. Allowing disputed credit to be used in the same dispute to defend its own admissibility, risks weakening the fairness of the appeals process. This warrants a calibrated approach, perhaps by restricting the use of only undisputed and admitted ITC balances for pre-deposit purposes in such cases. It is now incumbent upon the CBIC to address this emerging ambiguity, either through amendments or technical safeguards, so that the pre-deposit mechanism remains fair, consistent, and administratively sound.
But nevertheless, what emerges is a decision that not only upholds legal text but elevates statutory spirit. By allowing credit to discharge a procedural duty, the Court has ensured that taxation remains a tool of governance, not coercion. It respects the taxpayers' dignity, preserves liquidity for productive use, and affirms that where the law is silent, fairness must speak.
In sum, this ruling is not just about the ten percent. It is about the hundred percent purpose of GST regime's efficiency, clarity, and equity. The Court has reaffirmed that in a system designed around credit, legitimate credit must take precedence over cash. In doing so, it has ensured that justice under GST is not only delivered, but also advanced for the future.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
