Kamat Yatrinivas PVT LTD vs. The Principal Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was seeking an enlargement of time to pay the admitted tax liability. It was undisputed that the notice for payment of the admitted liability had not yet been issued. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate request to the authorities. The authorities are directed to consider such a request in light of the petitioner admitting the liability, strictly in accordance with law. The Court did not issue a writ of mandamus for recalculation or to stop coercive action at this stage, but rather facilitated a future request for payment accommodation.

Facts

The petitioner, Kamat Yatinivas Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking a writ of mandamus. The petitioner requested the respondent, the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax GST West, to refrain from taking coercive action and to recalculate the due amount. The respondent had issued notices (dated 13.03.2020 and 08.07.2020) indicating a liability. The petitioner admitted a GST liability of Rs. 1,67,17,995/- for the period June 2019 to January 2020, collected from customers for taxable supplies. A summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act was issued. The petitioner sought a one-year period to pay the admitted liability of Rs. 1,18,15,529/- in a phased manner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to take coercive action against the petitioner and to recalculate the due amount payable by the petitioner, as per the notices dated 13.03.2020 and 08.07.2020? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of one year to pay the admitted due amount of Rs. 1,18,15,529/- in a phased manner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner admitted the liability and stated that they would pay the same if reasonable time is granted by the authorities. They sought a one-year period to pay the admitted liability in installments. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A were not concluded. They asserted that a notice under Section 76 of the Act would be issued for the recovery of the due amount. The respondent also stated that it would be open for the petitioner to seek indulgence from the authorities for accommodation to pay the admitted liability after the issuance of such a notice.