2024 (10) TMI 968 - HC - GST

Challenge to notice in Form GST ASMT-10 and consequential recovery notice in FORM GST DRC-13 - failure to to file the returns in time as is contemplated under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The relief sought for in this writ petition is without any basis. The petitioner ought to have filed a writ petition for a mandamus to direct the respondents to adjudicate the issue as to whether the petitioner indeed liable to interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, justifying their stand as to how the interest is payable particularly when the amounts were credited to the accounts of the Government in the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger/Electronic Cash Register.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to recovery notice and interest on belated tax payments

Challenge to Recovery Notice:
The petitioner challenged a recovery notice issued by the first respondent in Form GST ASMT-10 and Form GST DRC-13 for belated returns filed. The petitioner contended that despite delayed filing, the tax was paid to the Department and only adjustment of credit was required. The petitioner also highlighted the issuance of multiple recovery notices and subsequent recovery of amounts, leading to a previous writ petition being disposed with directions for reconsideration by the respondent.

Interest on Belated Tax Payments:
The petitioner argued against the justification for recovering interest on the already deposited amounts, emphasizing that the tax payments were made in time to the Electronic Cash Ledger. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the writ petition had become infructuous due to prior court orders and submissions made by the petitioner in response to the notices.

Judgment Analysis:
The court found the relief sought in the writ petition to be unfounded, suggesting that the petitioner should have filed a mandamus petition to compel the respondents to adjudicate the issue of interest liability under the CGST Act. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to pass a fresh order within three months, justifying the interest payment requirement despite the timely crediting of amounts to the government accounts. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to be heard before the new order is issued and stated that the recovered interest amount would be subject to the final outcome of the petition.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with the outlined observations and directions, with no costs incurred. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as well. The judgment focused on the need for a fresh order from the respondents regarding the interest payment issue, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case before a decision is made.