2022 (12) TMI 343 - HC - GST

Legal Battle: Timely Payment Resolves Tax Dispute with Clear Directive on Interest Calculation and Statutory Appeal Rights

M/s. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), The Superintendent Office of the Superintendent of Central Tax & Central Excise Gummidipoondi Range-III, The Manager Indian Overseas Bank

HC addressed a dispute over interest on delayed payment under Section 50(1) of CGST Act. The court directed petitioner to pay admitted liability of ... Interest on delayed payment of refund - Section 50(1) of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that out of Rs.1,45,925/-, substantial amounts have been paid in two tranches and only Rs.1,642/- remains to be paid is learned writ petitioner counsel's say but learned Revenue Counsel says that this needs to be verified qua records. Writ petitioner to pay the admitted liability of Rs.1,45,925/-[Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Five only] or demonstrate to the satisfaction of Respondents 1 and 2 that substantial part of same has been paid and pay the balance within one week from today i.e., on or before 12.12.2022 - On payment or demonstration to the satisfaction of respondents 1 and 2 (as above), the impugned notice and the consequent impugned garnishee notice will stand set aside. Captioned writ petition stands disposed of. Issues:Interest on delayed payment under Section 50(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a writ petition involving interest on delayed payment under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act. The court noted that the matter was directly covered by previous orders in W.A.Nos.2127 and 2151 of 2019. The dispute arose from a previous case where two judges had differing views, leading to a referral to a third judge who concurred with one of the judges. Both parties agreed that an order similar to the one in W.P.No.15624 of 2019 would suffice. The court then outlined the operative portion of the previous order, emphasizing the payment of the admitted liability within a specified timeframe to set aside the impugned communication.In the current case, the Revenue claimed interest at Rs.5,76,212, while the petitioner assessed it at Rs.1,45,925. The court observed that a significant part of the amount had already been paid, leaving a balance of Rs.1,642. The court directed the petitioner to pay the admitted liability or demonstrate substantial payment to the satisfaction of the respondents within a week. Failure to do so would result in dismissal of the writ petition, allowing the impugned notice to continue. Upon payment or demonstration, the respondents were instructed to consider the petitioner's stance and communicate the decision within a week. The petitioner was advised to pursue a statutory appeal if the decision was unfavorable.The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with the specified directives, without any order as to costs. The associated writ miscellaneous petitions were also closed without costs.