Tax Interest Challenge Rejected: Petitioner Directed to Pursue Statutory Appeal Process Within Prescribed Timeframe

HC dismissed writ petition challenging tax interest order under WBGST/CGST Act. Court held alternative remedy of appeal exists and directed petitioner to approach Appellate Authority within three weeks. Emphasized expedited appeal resolution within eight weeks, ensuring procedural fairness while maintaining statutory appeal mechanism.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 73 of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for tax period April 2021 to March 2022. Levying of interest on tax liability despite payment from credit ledger. Interpretation of Section 50 of the Act regarding interest on belated cash payment. Alternative remedy of appeal before Appellate Authority. Timeliness of filing writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022, primarily contesting the imposition of interest on the tax liability despite payment from the credit ledger. The petitioner argued that interest should not be levied as the credit was available in the ledger at the time of liability. Reference was made to a judgment by the Madras High Court, emphasizing that interest is for belated cash payment, not for available Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.). The petitioner sought relief based on this interpretation, similar to the case of M/s. Refex Industries Limited.

The respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy through an appeal before the Appellate Authority and urged the court not to entertain the writ petition on this ground. It was argued that the judgment in the Refex Industries case was factually distinguishable and should not influence the present case. The court acknowledged the existence of multiple appellate authorities under the statute, with the first appellate authority currently functional despite the Appellate Tribunal not being constituted yet.

The court noted that the writ petition was filed more than five months after the impugned order, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Considering the availability of an alternative remedy and the timeliness of the petition, the court concluded that there was no scope to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was directed to approach the Appellate Authority within three weeks, with a directive for expedited consideration and disposal of the appeal, preferably within eight weeks from the date of the court's order. The writ petition was disposed of, emphasizing that the petitioner should not be left without recourse, especially in light of the pending constitution of the Appellate Tribunal.

---