Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury, J.
Ms Jitu Enterprises And Sounds Service And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department of Revenue, Room No-66-A, New Delhi and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/1258 of 2025
Decided On : 06-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ravi Shankar Mishra, Mr. A K Gupta, Mr K J Saikia
For the Respondent: DY.S.G.I., SC, GST
The court confirmed that payment for self-assessed tax liabilities under the CGST Act must adhere to statutory limits, allowing installments only up to twenty-four months.
Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 47, 50, 74 and 80 - Petitioner firm issued notices for discrepancies in tax returns during 2018-2019, leading to demands for late fees and interest. The court upheld the rejection of the request to pay in forty-eight installments under Section 80. (Paras 11-16)
(B) Taxation - Interest and penalties - Appellants were held liable for late payment and non-compliance with tax-related notices. Court clarified statutory limitation regarding installment payments for liabilities self-assessed. (Paras 12-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner firm was issued notices for late filing of GST returns and outstanding tax liability totaling over one crore, along with penalties for non-compliance.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner's request to pay in forty-eight installments was against statutory provisions, allowing only twenty-four. The court directed the petitioner to submit a revised application.
Issues: The primary issues were the legality of the demanded amount's payment in installments and adherence to the CGST Act provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the statutory provisions strictly limit installment payments, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with the CGST Act.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to file a fresh application for installment payments as permitted under the Act.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural facts regarding tax notices. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. court's observations on installment regulations. (Para 10 , 12 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. petitioners' arguments on installment payments. (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. final order on petitioner's application. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel representing Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST for the respondent nos. 2 – 5.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court by the present writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail a Notice bearing no. GEXCOM/AE/INV/507/2024-AE-O/o COM MR-CGST-DIBRUGARH dated 22.10.2024; and a Notice bearing no. GEXCOM/AE/INV/2910/2024/471 dated 28.11.2024; both issued by the respondent no. 3.
3. The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm having its registered office at Rangpur Nagar, District – Sivasagar and the petitioner no. 2 is the managing partner of the petitioner no. 1 firm. The petitioner no. 1 firm [‘the petitioner firm’, for short] is engaged in the business of execution of contracts of house keeping services, etc. and it is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax [CGST] Act, 2017 on and from 01.07.2017. The petitioner firm was issued a GST Registration Certificate bearing Registration no. 18AAIFJ1040K1ZF on 26.09.2017.
4. As the petitioner firm is liable to pay tax under the CGST Act, 2017, the respondent no. 5 after scrutiny of the returns for the tax period : 2018 – 2019 submitted by the petitioner firm, issued a notice on 26.10.2023 in Form GST ASMT-10 finding certain discrepancies. In the notice, it was informed that on scrutiny of returns, it was found that the returns had been filed by the petitioner firm beyond the due dates and as a result, the petitioner firm was found liable to pay late fee under Section 47 of the CGST Act, 2017 and also interest on late payment of the taxes under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 during the tax period : 2018 – 2019. The late fee amount was quantified at Rs. 1,13,850/- and the amount towards interest on delayed payment was quantified at Rs. 38,55,335/-. By the said notice, the petitioner firm was directed to explain the reasons for the discrepancies so found, by 27.11.2023. It was further informed to the petitioner firm that in the event no explanation was received by 27.11.2023, it would be presumed that the petitioner firm had nothing to say in the matter and proceedings in accordance with law would be initiated against it without making any further reference.
5. Thereafter on 29.11.2023, the respondent no. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner firm in Form GST DRC 01A under Rule 142[1A] of the CGST Act 2017 as intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section 74 [5]. It had referred to a proceedings drawn vide Reference no. 35/Offence/GST/HQAE/DIB/2021-22 dated 25.01.2022. In the said notice, it was informed to the petitioner firm that investigation revealed from the GSTR-3B returns for the period from June, 2018 to March, 2021 that the returns were filed after the due dates for availing input tax credit [ITC] and according to the authorities, the same were ineligible in terms of Section 16 [4] of the CGST Act. The amount was quantified at Rs. 8,79,904/-. In addition, the notice stated that it was revealed from the records that during the tax period from April, 2018 to March, 2022, the petitioner firm had failed to pay the tax to the exchequer within the period prescribed. The petitioner firm though filed the GST returns in GSTR-3B after due dates but it did not pay the applicable interest under Section 50 [1] of the CGST Act. In the notice, the amount calculated towards interest under Section 50 [1] of the CGST Act for the delayed payment of the taxes was quantified at Rs. 1,24,06,286/-. It was further i
