Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2020 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (10) TMI 433 - HC - GST


Issues:
1. Challenge to intimation under Section 74(5) of KGST Act with respect to tax, penalty, and interest payment.
2. Claim of exemption from payment of interest and penalty while availing the option of tax payment to avoid a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Intimation under Section 74(5) of KGST Act
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, challenged an intimation (Ext.P1) issued to her under Section 74(5) of the KGST Act, regarding tax, penalty, and interest payment to avoid a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act. The petitioner contended that although she paid the tax amount, she should not be liable to pay interest and 15% of the penalty, as the tax amount became payable only from the date of the intimation. The court considered the petitioner's argument but held that the scheme under Section 74 provides an option for the assessee to pay the tax, interest, and penalty to avoid a show cause notice. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot seek exemption from paying interest and penalty while opting for this scheme, as it is not permissible under the statute.

Issue 2: Claim of Exemption from Interest and Penalty Payment
The court rejected the petitioner's claim for exemption from interest and penalty payments while availing the option of paying tax to avoid a show cause notice. The court noted that the statutory scheme under Section 74 offers the assessee a choice between paying the tax with interest and penalty to avoid a show cause notice or contesting the notice. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot seek to benefit from the scheme while avoiding the payment of interest and penalty, as it goes against the statutory provisions. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner must comply with the terms of the scheme if choosing to avail of the option provided under Section 74. The court also clarified that the judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel did not support the petitioner's case, as they dealt with different issues.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates