9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aise a demand for the payment of interest on delayed furnishing of the Return under section 39 of the CGST Act. In CHANDRA PRAKASH ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UP. ANR. [ 2002 (4) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held ' The doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importance in the administration of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. Judicial consistency promotes confidence in the system, therefore, there is this need for consistency in the enunciation of legal principles in the decisions of this Court. It is in the above context, this Court Raghubir Singh held that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of this Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or smaller number of Judges'. The impugned order is set aside - petition allowed. - HON BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate (in all cases) Mr. Rohit Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, A.C to Sr.S.C.-I [in WPT Nos. 2853/2024 2854/2023] : Ms. Surabhi, A.C to A.A.G-II [in WPT No. 2855/2023] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexure-8 collectively), whereby and whereunder the liability has been imposed upon the Petitioner to pay interest u/s 50 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for delay in filing GSTR-3B returns resulting into delayed payment of 'Gross Tax Liability' for the period 2018-19 (June 2018 to March 2019). b. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside DRC-07 being summary of the order dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure-6) issued by State Tax Officer, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur (Respondent no. 3), whereby and whereunder the Petitioner has been directed to pay interest to the tune of Rs. 92,96,042.91, without passing any adjudication order. c. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in demanding interest to the tune of Rs. 92,96,042.91 for the period 2018-19 (June 2018 to March 2019) by determining the due date of payment of tax from the due date of filing of GSTR-3B Return to the actual date of filing of GSTR-3B Return for the particular month, is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 50 of the Goods and Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led or utilized for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilized input-tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least three months prior to the time-limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order. (3) Where a notice has been issued for any period under sub-section (1), the proper officer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input-tax credit wrongly availed or utilized for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax. (4) The service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under sub-section (1), su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer, shall serve, along with the (a) notice issued under section 52 or section 73 or section 74 or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130, a summary thereof electronically in form GST DRC-01. (b) statement under sub-section (3) of section 73 or sub-section (3) of section 74, a summary thereof electronically in form GST DRC-02, specifying therein the details of the amount payable. (1A) The proper officer shall, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of section 73 or sub-section (1) of section 74, as the case may be, shall communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of form GST DRC-01 A. (2) Where, before the service of notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and interest in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 74, or where any person makes payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court held as under: 13. We are of the considered opinion that the case of the present petitioner stands covered by the ratio rendered by this Court in the case of Mahadeo Construction Co. (supra) as despite disputing the liability towards interest, the revenue has raised a demand for payment of interest on the ground of delay in furnishing of GSTR-3B return for the period July 2017 to December 2019 without initiating any adjudication proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Earlier by an order dated 8th May 2020 a Coordinate Bench of this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection from any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned demand at Annexure-4. 14. A glance at paragraph No. 14 in Narsing Ispat (supra) reveals that in that case also the co-ordinate Bench of this Court took note of Mahadeo Construction Co. which was referred in R.K. Transport Private Limited , and held as under: 14. The next question which falls for consideration is, whether liability of interest under section 50 of the Act could be raised without initiating any adjudication proceeding either under section 73 or 74 of JGST Act in the event Assessee raising a disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (3) of Section 50 further contemplates that a taxable person who makes an undue or excess claim of input tax credit under Section 42 (10) or undue or excess reduction in output tax liability under Section 43 (10) shall have 17 to pay interest on undue or excess claim or such undue or excess reduction, at the rate not exceeding 24 percent. 29. A careful perusal of sub Sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 thus would show that though the liability to pay interest under Section 50 is an automatic liability, still the quantification of such liability, certainly, cannot be by way of an unilateral action, more particularly, when the assesse disputes with regard to the period for which the tax alleged to have not been paid or quantum of tax allegedly remains unpaid. Likewise, whether an undue or excess claim of input tax credit or reduction in output tax liability was made, is also a question of fact which needs to be considered and decided after hearing the objections of the assesse, if any. Therefore, in my considered view, though the liability fastened on the assesse to pay interest is an automatic liability, quantification of such liability certainly needs an arithmetic exercise after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjections. Thus, I find that the Writ Appeals preferred against the said orders of the Writ Court, as observed by Dr. Vineet Kothari, J, are wholly unnecessary. Therefore, I am in agreement with the view expressed by Dr. Vineet Kothari, J., as I find that entertaining the writ appeal is not warranted, since the Writ Court has not determined the interest liability of each petitioners against the interest of the Revenue in any manner and on the other hand, it only remitted the matter back to the concerned Officer to determine the quantum of such liability. Thus, the second question with regard to the maintainability of the writ appeals is answered accordingly. 15. We have gone through the orders passed by the State Tax Officer and find that there was no adjudication before a demand for the payment of interest was raised because of the delayed filing of the Returns. This is a well accepted norm of judicial discipline that a Bench of co-equal strength must follow the decision of the another Bench of co-equal strength. In Chandra Prakash Vs. State of U.P reported in (2002) 4 SCC 234 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 22. The doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
