TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. 3. The aforementioned order and demand were made in connection to the order dated 4th January 2021 in Form GST DRC-07 passed by the State Tax Officer, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur against the petitioners in Reference No. ZD200121000051W, Reference No. ZD200121000052U and Reference No. ZD200121000050Y. 4. Before passing of the order in Form GST DRC-07, the petitioners were informed by the order dated 17th January 2020 that they had defaulted in filing the Return and thus have to pay interest; with the following direction: "The grounds and qualification are attached/given below: You have filed GSTR-3B after due date, but you have not paid Interest U/S 50 of SGST, 2017 on Tax/Cess in Cash Because it was not system calculated. You are hereby advised to pay the amount of interest as ascertained above full by 25.01.2020, failing which show Cause Notice will be issued under Section 73(1). In case you wish to file any submissions against the above ascertainment, the same may be furnished by 25.01.2020 in part B of this Form." DSCT/ACST/STO Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur 5. The writ petitioners aggrieved by the aforementioned demand notices for p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CE6839Q1ZC. Being a manufacturer, the petitioner-Firm is engaged in outward and inward supply of goods in connection to its business. Under section 39 of the JGST Act, every registered person other than the input service distributor or a non-resident taxable person etc. shall be liable to furnish a Return for every calendar month or part thereof electronically of inward and outward supply of goods or services or both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid and such other particulars in such form and manner and within such time as may be prescribed. 8. According to the petitioner-Firm, there was some delay in filing of the Return for the period from June 2018 to March 2019 but the Return could at last be filed within time as Notifications were issued on 31st December 2018, 24th June 2020 and 1st June 2021 extending the time for filing of the Return. However, the petitioner-Firm received a notice on 17th January 2022 for the payment of interest to the tune of Rs. 92,96,042.91 on account of delayed filing of the Return. Later, a show-cause notice under section 73 of the JGST Act was issued on 3rd December 2020 and, without affording any opportunity of hearing, Form GST DRC-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment. (6) The proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1), or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (7) Where the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under sub-section (5) falls short of the amount actually payable, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable. (8) Where any person chargeable with tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) pays the said tax along with interest payable under section 50 within thirty days of issue of show-cause notice, no penalty shall be payable and all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded. (9) The proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and a penalty equivalent to ten per cent. of tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount communicated to him or desires to file any submissions against the proposed liability, he may make such submission in Part B of form GST DRC-01A." 10. Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm submits that the issue whether or not interest can be levied without adjudication is no more res integra. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm refers to the decisions by coordinate Benches of this Court in "M/s Nkas Services Private Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand" in W.P.(T) No. 2444 of 2021 dated 6th October 2021, "R.K. Transport Private Limited, Phusro, Bokaro Vs. The Union of India" in W.P.(T) No. 1404 of 2020 dated 16th February 2022, "M/s Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & others" in W.P.(T) No. 3908 of 2020 with W.P.(T) No. 3909 of 2020 dated 18th April 2022 and other decisions, to put forth a plea that the recovery proceeding under section 73 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated without a final adjudication. 11. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I, the learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has however referred to "Narsingh Ispat Limited through its Director Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Min....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssesse disputes the liability of interest i.e. either disputes its calculation or even the leviability of interest, then the only option left for the Assessing Officer is to initiate proceedings either under Section 73 or 74 of the Act for adjudication of the liability of interest. Recently, the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in its decision dated 19th December, 2019 rendered in Writ Appeals in the case of The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise and others Vs. Daejung Moparts Pvt. Ltd. and ors, has taken similar view. The said Writ Appeals were initially decided by a Two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and divergent views were taken by the Hon'ble Judges on the issue of initiation of adjudication proceedings before imposing liability of interest under Section 50 of the Act. The matter was, thus, referred to learned Third 12 Judge, which was decided vide Judgment dated 19th December 2019 in the following terms:- "27. A careful perusal of the above said provision would show that every person who is liable to pay tax, but fails to pay the same or any part thereof within the period prescribed shall, on his own, pay interest at such rate not exceeding 18% for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assesse disputes the quantum as well as the period of liability. Therefore, in my considered view, though the liability of interest under section 50 is automatic, quantification of such liability shall have to be made by doing the arithmetic exercise, after considering the objections of the assessee. Thus I answer the first issue accordingly. xxx xxx xxx 31. It is to be noted at this juncture that in both the writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners are not disputing their liability to pay the interest on the delayed payment of tax. On the other hand, they are disputing the quantum of interest claimed by the Revenue by contending that the interest liability was worked out on the entire tax liability instead of restricting the liability to the extent of tax unpaid. It is further seen that the writ petitioners have placed some worksheets, wherein they have claimed some ITC credit for every month as well. Their grievance before the Writ Court was that the impugned bank attachment ought not to have been resorted to without determining the actual quantum of liability. 32. Therefore, it is evident that the dispute between the parties to the litigation is not with regard ....