9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 964 - HC - GSTDemand of interest in terms of Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - period July, 2017 to September, 2021 - HELD THAT - 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. 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. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to demand of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period July 2017 to September 2021. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari challenging an order demanding interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period from July 2017 to September 2021. The petitioner acknowledged some liability towards IGST, CGST, and SGST but disputed the quantification of interest by the authority. The petitioner promptly wrote to the respondent regarding this matter, expressing concerns about the demand raised for a period dating back to 2017 and requesting time to review the computation provided. Additionally, the petitioner submitted a statement of accounts outlining its own quantification of the taxes in question. The petitioner, fearing potential recovery actions due to the lack of response to their request for a personal hearing, filed a Writ Petition challenging the quantification of interest in the impugned order. Recognizing that the remaining issue was the accurate quantification of the demand based on differing calculations between the Department and the petitioner, the court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent without further notice on a specified date to discuss and agree on a proper quantification of the demand. The court emphasized the importance of the parties reaching a consensus on the quantification to facilitate the issuance of a fresh demand for the interest payable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and it was instructed to be redone based on the discussions between the parties within a specific timeframe. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs imposed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, concluding the legal proceedings on the matter.
|
