Raj Sanjaybhai Tanna vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court declined to entertain the petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Court opined that PIL jurisdiction should not be exercised in this case because the affected parties, numbering around 1.30 crore dealers, are not a weaker section of society and have the means and ability to approach the court themselves. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and ors to emphasize that while PIL jurisdiction has expanded, it is generally confined to issues like environmental protection and public accountability. The petitioners, being tax consultants, are indirectly concerned with the provision. Since the affected group does not suffer from any handicap preventing them from litigating, the issue should not be examined in a PIL. The petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

Facts

The petitioners, a practicing advocate and a tax consultant, filed a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Section 47 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This section imposes a late fee for filing returns beyond the prescribed due date. The petitioners contended that the 'late fee' was in reality a penalty, depriving dealers of their right to appeal and to present reasons for delayed filing. They cited practical difficulties, including portal malfunctions, as reasons for delayed filings. The Court noted that approximately 1.30 crore dealers were affected by this provision.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 47 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which imposes late fees for delayed filing of returns, is ultra vires the Constitution, particularly in its characterization as a 'late fee' rather than a 'penalty'. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the charges levied under Section 47 are penal in nature, not mere late fees, and that this categorization unfairly deprives registered persons of their right to appeal and to provide sufficient cause for delayed filing. They contended that previous laws categorized such charges as penal and highlighted practical difficulties, such as portal malfunctions, that hinder timely return filing. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state regarding the constitutional validity of Section 47. However, the Court's decision implies a rejection of the petitioners' arguments on the grounds of maintainability of the PIL.