2021 (7) TMI 1159 - HC - GST

Interest on delayed payment of tax - Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent on 03.11.2020, which is yet to be disposed of and such representation is entertainable under the provisions of the Act and the Authorities Competent is duty bound to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. The first respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 03.11.2020 and pass an order on merits and in accordance with law and by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of order passed by Assistant Commissioner under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding interest on delayed payment of tax.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Partnership Firm engaged in manufacturing knitted and crocheted fabrics, challenged the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 03.02.2021, questioning the validity of the decision. The petitioner argued that interest on delayed tax payment under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be charged. However, the Assistant Commissioner failed to address the factual and legal grounds raised by the petitioner, leading to a lack of adjudication on the merits of the case.

The impugned order revealed that the Assistant Commissioner did not decide on any issues on merits but rather referred to circulars regarding the lapse of credit and refund processes. The Assistant Commissioner granted the petitioner the liberty to appeal against the original order dated 11.11.2020 but did not address the specific grievances related to interest charges. The petitioner emphasized that their grievance was against the interest charged and submitted a representation on 03.11.2020, seeking redressal based on the relevant provisions of the Act.

In response, the Government Advocate representing the Assistant Commissioner argued that the original order was appealable and that the petitioner had the option to appeal in accordance with the law. However, the Court found that the petitioner's main concern was the interest charged under Section 50 of the Act, and the representation submitted by the petitioner was yet to be addressed by the competent authority as required by law.

The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation submitted on 03.11.2020 promptly, within twelve weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was instructed to cooperate by providing all necessary documents and evidence. It was clarified that if there were any grievances regarding circulars issued by the Board, the petitioner could seek recourse through appropriate legal channels after due adjudication by the Competent Authority. Ultimately, the writ petitions were disposed of with no costs awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.