9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 307 - AT - GSTRecovery of interest on GST - Adjustment of amount of rebate claims against the interest on delayed payment of goods and service tax by the appellant - Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in the case in hand, the appellant has disputed the interest liability and the same has not been adjudicated, in that circumstances, the recovery of interest from the appellant is not in terms of law and the said recovery cannot be made - there are no merit in the impugned orders, the same are set-aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Rebate claims adjustment against GST payment, invocation of Section 11A of Central Excise Act and Section 79 of CGST Act, dispute over interest payment, applicability of show cause notice, determination and quantification of amount due before recovery, garnishee proceedings under Section 79 without adjudication of interest liability. Analysis: 1. Rebate Claims Adjustment Against GST Payment: The appellant appealed against orders adjusting rebate claims against GST payment for September 2017. The appellant contended that the rebate claims were initially denied but later sanctioned on appeal. The revenue adjusted the amount against interest on delayed GST payment by the appellant. The appellant disputed the interest payment, leading to the current appeal. 2. Invocation of Section 11A of Central Excise Act and Section 79 of CGST Act: The appellant argued that the adjustment was made invoking Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the appellant claimed that a show cause notice was necessary under Section 11A, which was not issued in this case. 3. Dispute Over Interest Payment: The appellant disputed the interest payment for GST paid late in September 2017. The appellant's counsel referenced legal precedents, including judgments from the Bombay High Court and Jharkhand High Court, emphasizing that recovery of interest requires adjudication of the amount due before any coercive action. 4. Applicability of Show Cause Notice: The provision of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was deemed inapplicable due to the absence of a show cause notice. The tribunal noted that Section 11A serves as a machinery provision for interest recovery, necessitating a show cause notice, which was missing in this case. 5. Determination and Quantification of Amount Due Before Recovery: Citing judgments from the Bombay High Court and Jharkhand High Court, the tribunal highlighted the importance of determining and quantifying the amount due before initiating recovery proceedings. The courts emphasized that the amount payable must be ascertained and quantified in accordance with the law before any coercive steps can be taken. 6. Garnishee Proceedings Under Section 79 Without Adjudication of Interest Liability: The tribunal concluded that since the appellant disputed the interest liability, which remained unadjudicated, the recovery of interest under Section 79 of the CGST Act was not in accordance with the law. The tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief. In summary, the tribunal found that the recovery of interest without adjudication of the amount due was not legally justified. The judgments from the Bombay High Court and Jharkhand High Court underscored the necessity of determining the liability of interest before initiating recovery proceedings. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
|
