2024 (9) TMI 1690 - HC - GST

Waiver of penalty - recovery of dues - HELD THAT - It seems that the petitioners company submitted a letter on 28.03.2022 requesting for conversion of outstanding liability into monthly instalments which was allowed by the concerned Assistant Commissioner. The issue therefore stood closed at that level itself with regard to the aspect regarding waiver of penalty. A presumption has to be drawn in terms of the aforesaid communications that the authorities as well as the petitioner himself did not press further for waiver of penalty and has later on insisted for waiver of penalty vide its letter dated 21.08.2024. In the circumstances it is a case where the petitioners seek to revive what they had already accepted earlier and had also deposited the amount. Petition dismissed.

Summary

**Summary of Judgment: Punjab and Haryana High Court**In the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioners sought a waiver of penalty following a Supreme Court order in Civil Appeal Nos. 63-66 of 2022, which allowed them to make a representation to the appropriate authority. The petitioners argued that despite making a representation, the penalty was neither waived nor decided upon.The court noted that after the Supreme Court's decision on January 4, 2022, the Assistant Commissioner, Division (West), Commissionerate of Central Excise, Faridabad, communicated on March 5, 2022, regarding recovery dues. The communication asserted that since the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, confirming the order of CESTAT, Chandigarh Bench dated March 22, 2018, all legal remedies were exhausted. The petitioners were requested to deposit interest and penalty within three days. Subsequently, the petitioners requested conversion of the outstanding liability into monthly installments, which was granted.The court held that the issue regarding the waiver of penalty was closed at that level, as the petitioners did not press further for the waiver initially and had accepted the orders by requesting installment payments. The court found that the petitioners' later insistence on a penalty waiver, after having acquiesced and made payments, could not be reopened. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.