TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication on merits unless other defects, if any, as required under the statute is removed. Since all the bank accounts have been seized and the Petitioner is unable to operate, it is not possible to deposit the entire admitted interest at one go. Therefore, he prayed for lifting forthwith the attachment on the Bank to enable it to deposit Rs.5,00,00,000/- within 48 hours and the Petitioner undertakes to deposit rest of the amount out of Rs.9,25,43,693.52 in two equated fortnightly instalments but not later than 16th August, 2022 - Upon such deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Revenue/Opposite Parties shall forthwith ensure the withdrawal of all the attachments made in pursuance of the original demand(s). Petition disposed off. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishee proceeding under Section 79 of the OGST Act. 4. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the levy of interest for delayed payment of tax for the years 2017-18 to 2020- 21 is not tenable in the eyes of law as the Petitioner does not admit the entire liability for payment of interest. 5. Perusal of identical First Appellate order (one of the appeals) reveals as follows:- From perusal of record and the Appeal filed by the Taxpayer it is found that the Taxpayer appellant has not paid and furnished the proof of payment which is mandatory pre-deposit of interest in full as per provision of Section 107(6) (a) of the OGST Act, 2017. The Taxpayer has filed first appeal by virtue of Section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in full under section 107(6)(a) of OGST Act, 2017. In view of above discussed facts, submitted reply to show cause notice issued, papers documents, etc., it is confirmed that the appeal petition filed under the OGST Act, 2017 is found defective as the Taxpayer appellant has not paid and furnished the proof of payment which is mandatory pre-deposit of interest in full under section 107(6)(a) of the OGST Act, 2017. Hence, the appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of CT GST, Cuttack-I Central Circle, Cuttack I, Odisha raising demand of Rs.45,91,619.00 (IGST Rs.2,19,810.00 + CGST Rs.22,05,027.00 + OGST Rs. 21,66,782.00) which is demanded against Interest is not sustainable as per the provisions of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the time limit within which it has to discharge its tax liability. In the event of delay it is required to compute its liability with respect to interest by virtue of notification issued by competent authority specifying the rate of interest. Therefore, it is clear that the liability to pay interest under Section 50 is not only self-imposed but also automatic without any requirement for determination by any other (refer: M/s. P.K. Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, WP(C) No. 10335 of 2022 vide order dated 6.5.22 of this Court and Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, WP(C) 44517 of 2018 vide judgment dated 18th April, 2019 of High Court of State of Telangana at Hyderabad). 8. Be that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Account No.-0569073000000001 Account Holder Orissa Stevedores Limited. 9. Mr. Sunil Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel for the CT GST Organisation filed response to the said statement of the Petitioner, wherein it has been stated that the Petitioner has reconciled the admitted interest payable at Rs.9,25,43,693.52. The Opposite Party Department has also reconciled the amount of interest payable and after reconciliation the total interest payable has been reduced to Rs.11,66,76,288/-. It has also been conceded by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel that due to inadvertence interest was calculated on output tax liability instead of net tax payable and such rectification may be permitted. 10. Be that as it may, this Court is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|