Discretionary GST instalments do not create a vested right, but failure to decide and communicate the request can justify remand.

The instalment facility for GST ITC reversal was discretionary and did not create a vested right to 24 instalments, because the notification left further time or monthly instalments to the Commissioner's discretion. However, the authority had to take and communicate a final decision on the instalment request; keeping it pending prejudiced the taxable person by increasing interest liability and breached natural justice. As the sustainability of the rectified demand depended on that decision, the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred could not stand without merits scrutiny, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, including the instalment issue and the demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prayer for instalment-based ITC reversal under the GST notification conferred a vested right or remained subject to the Commissioner's discretion, and whether non-communication of a decision on that prayer justified interference with the appellate order and remand of the appeal.

Analysis: The notification governing instalments used discretionary language, showing that the Commissioner may allow further time or monthly instalments as deemed fit, and the taxable person could not claim an automatic entitlement to 24 instalments. At the same time, the authority was required to take and communicate a final decision on the request for instalments. Keeping the request pending caused prejudice by increasing interest liability and amounted to a breach of natural justice. Since the sustainability of the demand depended upon the decision on instalments, the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred could not be sustained without examining the merits.

Conclusion: The instalment facility was discretionary and did not create a vested right, but the unexplained non-communication of the decision on the instalment request warranted interference. The appellate order was set aside and the appeal was remanded for fresh consideration on merits, including the instalment issue and the sustainability of the rectified demand.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of securing a fresh adjudication of the appeal, with the appellate authority required to decide the instalment request and then determine the demand by a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax authority is vested with discretion to allow instalments, the assessee has no vested right to such facility, but failure to take and communicate a timely decision on the request can violate natural justice and justify remand for fresh decision on the consequential demand.

---