9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than the order of the learned Judge. Therefore, the said interim order subsequently obtained, cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case and the order of the learned Judge holds good as on 05.01.2021, which warrants no interference. However, it is made clear that there is no bar for the appellants in proceeding with the enquiry as against the respondents, after issuing show cause notices afresh and providing opportunity of hearing. This writ appeal stands disposed of. - W.A.No.1032 of 2022 And CMP.No.6553 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 18-4-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice R. Mahadevan And Honourable Mr.Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad For the Appellant : Mr. K. Sathish Kumar JUDGMENT R.MAHADEVAN, J. Assailing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T on the amount of penalty. 3.It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the order dated 18.12.2020 made in WP(MD)No.10355 of 2020, based on which, the learned Judge passed the order impugned herein, was subsequently challenged by the appellants / TASMAC by filing WA(MD)No.679 of 2021 and this court, by order dated 24.03.2021, granted an order of interim stay in respect of the findings of the learned Judge on the calculation of GST on the penalty, alone; and hence, the order of the learned Judge is covered by the said interim order of this court dated 24.03.2021 passed in WA(MD)No.679 of 2021. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the omitted section 7(1)(d) was brought into the same amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and finalise the same, after hearing the respondents by issuing a fresh show cause notice, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, having regard to the admitted position that no enquiry was conducted before passing the order imposing penalty on the respondents herein. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration herein is with respect to the findings of the learned Judge, on the levy of GST. 6.It could be seen from the order impugned in this appeal that the learned Judge decided the question of levy of GST, in the light of the earlier orders in WP(MD)No.10355 of 2020 dated 18.12.2020 and WP.No.12657 of 2020 etc. batch dated 22.02.2021 and ultimately, held that 'post 01.07.2017, there can be no levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, the respondents submitted that the petitioner refrained from performing to prevent the shortage of supply, so that they have imposed the penalty and as such it would attract the GST. This Court is not in a position to accept the present approach of the respondents due to the reason that the imposition of any GST will arise only when the penalty imposed in the course of trade or commerce. During the course of business, if any agreement was entered, where there is a delay in supply or in payment, if any, penalty imposed as per the agreement, such penalty comes under the purview of Section 7 (1A) for the imposition of GST. However, in the present case, the penalty imposed was in a disciplinary proceedings to an employee which would not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e finding on the calculation of GST on the penalty alone is concerned. Thus, it is made clear that the other portion of the order of the learned Judge, in which, liberty was given to the appellant to proceed to conduct an enquiry has not been dealt with and therefore, it is open to the appellant/petitioner to proceed further. Notice. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order impugned herein is covered by the above stated interim order dated 24.03.2021 in WA (MD) No.679 of 2021. 8.In the opinion of this court, the contention so made on the side of the appellants, cannot be accepted. The learned Judge rendered her finding that 'post 01.07.2017, there can be no levy of GST on the amount of penalty', on 05.01.2021, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
