AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The primary challenge in this writ petition is to the circular bearing F. No.CBEC-20/16/07/2020-GST dated 10th February 2020 (Annexure-1) issued
by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs which prescribes that interest payable on delayed payment of tax can be recovered under the
provisions of Section 79 of the CGST Act read with Section 75(12).
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kurmi has referred to two documents : one Annexure-8 dated 28th January 2020 whereunder petitioner has
been intimated to pay the amount of interest applicable over the tax in full, failing which he would face proceedings under Section 73(1) of the CGST
Act, whereas according to him the subsequent summary order in respect of the same tax period as contained in Annexure-5 dated 26th February 2020
seeks to recover the interest amount instead of initiating any proceeding under Section 73(1) only on account of issuance of the circular dated 10th
February 2020 (Annexure-1) by the CBIC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the validity of the circular inter-alia on several grounds
and submitted that in case the interest liability is disputed, automatic process of recovery by resorting to Section 79 of the Act would preclude any
adjudication process and leave the assesse with no remedy. The notice at Annexure-8 and the summary order at Annexure-5 are clear manifestation
of the consequences that would flow if the impugned circular dated 10th February 2020 is allowed to prevail. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that a situation may arise where though the GSTR-3B return has been filed after some delay, but the tax has been deposited only after a delay
of 3-4 days of the due date. Therefore, an issue may arise whether the interest chargeable thereupon would accrue from the date of deposit of the tax
or from the date of filing of the return. If it is so, the computation of interest becomes a disputed question which requires adjudication after proper
show-cause notice. Petitioner being aggrieved by the circular has, therefore, preferred this writ petition. Rest of the prayers are only consequential in
nature though they relate to different financial years i.e. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 inter-alia seeking quashing of the impugned demand notices.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, during course of submissions, seeks to confine his consequential reliefs to the financial year 2017-18
while seeking liberty to assail the respective demand notices for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20 in separate writ petitions. Multiple reliefs in respect of
demand notices for different subject periods/financial years could not be clubbed in one writ petition as it may also cause inconvenience to the Court.
He is allowed liberty to do so.
Learned counsel for the respondents CGST and the State of Jharkhand both pray for and are allowed four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Matter be listed after six weeks. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the parties would submit their
written notes and decisions on which they seek to rely latest by preceding Friday to the week in which the matter is to be listed. Let the name of Mr.
P.A.S. Pati appear for the respondents in place of erstwhile counsel Mr. Ratnesh Kumar in the cause list henceforth.