9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d paid only in January 2020 except the penalty. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Section 73 of the Act since has been invoked for imposing penalty that is a wrong invocation and if at all the petitioner case is to be considered and it should be considered only under Section 61 of the Act and in that, Section 61(2) enables the Revenue to make only the tax as well as the collection of interest and not for penalty. Therefore, the penalty imposed against the petitioner is not inconsonance with the said provisions of the Act. After the assessment order is made, within thirty days if the petitioner comes forward to file the return, then the order of assessment can be withdrawn. However, the late fee and the interest imposed on the dealer shall be pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Reference No.:001/2019 dated 04.09.2019 passed by the first respondent and the consequent bank attachment notice bearing reference RC.3308/ 2019/B4 dated 28.12.2021 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the second respondent to refrain from issuing recovery notices to the customers of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a dealer under the GST regime, with regard to the period between August 2018 and March 2019, no return had been filed, no tax had been paid by the petitioner admittedly. 3. Therefore, notice was issued by the Revenue on 01.07.2019 and 16.08.2019, both the notices having been, according to the Revenue, served on th petitioner, not been responded and therefore, the Revenue having no other optio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file the return for several months between August 2018 and March 2019. Therefore, the Revenue issued notice twice, despite that, no reply had been given by the petitioner. Thereafter, final assessment order which is impugned herein was passed, only then the petitioner had come forward to pay the tax wholly in January 2020 for the period relates to August 2018 and March 2019. Therefore, not only the interest but also the penalty, the petitioner is liable to pay, which has in fact been imposed through the impugned order. Therefore, it does not warrant any interference from this Court. He would also submit that, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved over the said order of assessment, he can prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the petitioner by quoting the aforesaid provisions, I am not impressed with the said submission because of the reason that, under Section 62(2) of the Act, where, the registered person furnishes a valid return within thirty days of the service of the assessment order under sub-section (1), the said assessment order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn but the liability for payment of interest under sub-section (1) of Section 50 or for payment of late fee under Section 47 shall continue. 10. This means that, after the assessment order is made, within thirty days if the petitioner comes forward to file the return, then the order of assessment can be withdrawn. However, the late fee and the interest imposed on the dealer shall be paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
