TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000800H passed by the Additional Commissioner, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... registered under the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short JGST Act) vide registration No.20AAACE6839Q1ZC. 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the statement under sub-section (3), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 on the basis of his own ascertainment 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in form GST DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an acknowledgement, accepting the payment made by the said person in form GST DRC-04. (2A) Where the person referred to in sub-rule (1A) has made partial payment of the 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on (Supra) at para-21 of the judgment is extracted hereunder: "21. It is not a true that liability of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is automatic, but the said amount of interest is required to be calculated and intimated to an assesse. If an assesse 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 followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the term "automatic" does not mean or to be construed as excluding "the arithmetic exercise". In other words, though liability to pay interest arises under Section 50 of the said Act, it does not mean that fixing the quantum of such liability can be unilateral, especially, when 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 cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. Judicial consistency promotes confidence in the system, therefore, there is this need for consistency in the enunciation of legal principles in the decisions of this Court. It is in the above context, this Court Raghubir Singh held that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of this Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or smaller number of Judges " 16. Soon after "Chandra Prakash", the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered a similar opinion in "State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer" reported in (2003) 5 SCC 448 and held as under: "10. ... an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the court or more aspects should have been gone into by the court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Easy course....