Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
M/s. Blue Ocean Personnel & Allied Services Private Limited Represented by its Director – Operations J. Vijay Prakash - Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. No. 14974 of 2022 & WMP. No. 14193 of 2022
Decided On : 16-06-2022
Certiorari - Taxation - The court set aside the order demanding interest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent to arrive at a proper quantification of the demand.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order demanding interest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period July, 2017 to September, 2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent to arrive at a proper quantification of the demand, after which a fresh demand of interest payable may be raised.
Issues: Dispute over quantification of interest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the petitioner and the respondent to deliberate and arrive at a proper quantification of the demand before raising a fresh demand of interest payable.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the respondent pertaining to the impugned order of demand in OC No.44/2022 DIN-20220459TL06008875E6 dated 25.04.2022 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional.)
1. Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Panel counsel accepts notice for the respondent and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter to enable final disposal of this matter even at this stage. Hence, by consent of both learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed even at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari challenging order dated 25.04.2022 demanding interest in terms of Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'CGST') for the period July, 2017 to September, 2021.
3. Though the petitioner would accede to there being some liability towards Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act (IGST), CGST and State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST), what is disputed is quantification of interest by the authority in the impugned communication. To this end, in fact, the petitioner has immediately written to the respondent on 28.05.2022.
4. Inter alia, the petitioner states that the demand raised now relates to a period commencing from 2017, which is 5 years prior to the present period. It has, hence, have sought some time to peruse the computation annexed. In any event, it has also enclosed a statement of accounts detailing its quantification of the IGST, CGST and SGST.
5. Apprehending demand of recovery, since there is no response till date to the request seeking personal hearing, the present Writ Petition has come to be filed challenging the quantification in the impugned order.
6. Seeing as what remains is only a proper quantification of the demand based on the rival quantifications between the Department and the petitioner, it would suffice that the petitioner be directed to appear before the respondent on Friday, the 24th of June, 2022 at 10.30. am. without expecting any further notice in this regard. Let the parties deliberate upon the matter and arrive at a proper quantification of the demand, pursuant to which fresh demand of interest payable may be raised.
7. The impugned order is hence set aside, to be re-done based on the deliberations as above within a period of four (4) from 24.06.2022. This Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
The court emphasized the importance of proper quantification of the demand before raising a fresh demand of interest payable under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Section 16(5) CGST Act permits ITC claims for 2017-2021 if GSTR-3B filed by 30.11.2021, overriding Section 16(4).
Compliance with mandatory requirements of Section 75(4) of Goods and Service Tax enactments and availability of alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107
The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the availability of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act as the appropriate remedy to address issues related to the applicabili....
The High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside an assessment order and grant a remand for de novo adjudication when the petitioner agrees to pay a portion of the dis....
An impugned tax assessment order may be set aside and remanded for de novo consideration conditioned upon the payment of a specified portion of the disputed tax demand when there are allegations of a....
The High Court may set aside an impugned order and remand a tax matter for re-adjudication, even after the limitation period for an appeal has expired, provided the petitioner demonstrates compliance....
The court may remand a tax assessment order for re-adjudication following a breach of natural justice, provided the petitioner complies with a condition of pre-depositing a specified percentage of th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
