9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 441 - HC - GSTInterest on delayed payment of GST - HELD THAT - Considering facts that as per Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, interest is payable on the delayed payment of tax and that as per the interest statement filed along with the impugned letter, dated 07.02.2020, there was delay in filing GSTR-3B and hence, interest on 'cash set off' and 'ITC set off' has been calculated and payment thereof has been asked for, recovery of interest against the petitioner, insofar it relates to 'I.T.C. set off', shall remain stayed. Issue notice before admission, on payment of process fee, if not already paid, within three working days, returnable within four weeks.
Issues:
1. Admission and interim relief regarding delayed payment of tax interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. 2. Stay of recovery of interest against the petitioner related to 'I.T.C. set off'. Analysis: 1. The High Court heard the matter concerning admission and interim relief. The petitioner was represented by Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, while Sri B. Krishna Mohan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appeared for the respondents. The court noted the delay in filing GSTR-3B as per the interest statement filed with the impugned letter dated 07.02.2020. Pursuant to Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, interest is payable on delayed tax payments. The court acknowledged the calculation of interest on 'cash set off' and 'ITC set off' and the demand for payment. However, the court ordered a stay on the recovery of interest against the petitioner concerning 'I.T.C. set off.' 2. In light of the above, the court directed the issuance of notice before admission, subject to payment of process fee within three working days if not already paid, returnable within four weeks. The court emphasized the importance of considering the facts related to the payment of interest on delayed tax under the statutory provisions. Additionally, the court decided to list the case along with W.P. No. 4734 of 2020 for analogous hearing after four weeks to ensure a comprehensive review of the matter and related issues.
|
