M/S R.K. Goyal Steels Private Limited Through Directyor Mrs. Krishna Goyal vs. Principal Commissioner Central Tax, Delhi South & Ors.
Held
The Court held that the communication dated February 22, 2023, would be considered as a notice for consultation prior to the issuance of a formal show cause notice. The petitioner would be given an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether any interest or late payment charges, as mentioned in the communication, are payable. The Court further observed that if the respondents believe there was a delay on the petitioner's part after the technical glitches were resolved, they are at liberty to issue a show cause notice for the recovery of any amounts in accordance with the law. The Court did not decide on the specific amounts of interest or late fees, leaving this for a future determination through the show cause notice procedure.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s R.K. Goyal Steels Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the respondents to make the GST system workable for filing returns and amending registration certificates, or to allow manual filing. The petitioner claimed inability to file GST returns due to technical glitches. The High Court had previously granted an interim order on October 9, 2019, directing no coercive steps against the petitioner for non-filing of returns. Subsequently, the petitioner informed the court that the technical glitches were resolved and returns were filed. However, the petitioner remained aggrieved by the demand for interest and late payment fees, arguing it should not be liable for delays caused by technical issues.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest and late payment fees for the period during which it was unable to file GST returns due to technical glitches in the respondent's system, as per Section 172 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that it should not be held liable for interest and late payment charges because the delay in filing returns was solely attributable to technical glitches in the respondent's system, and it was compelled to file the present petition due to this inability. The petitioner relied on the fact that the petition was filed within three years of the incorporation of the CGST Act. The respondents clarified that the communication dated February 22, 2023, was not a show cause notice but a calculation of amounts payable. They conceded that no interest or late payment charges could be levied for the period of technical glitches. However, they contended that any delay after the resolution of these glitches would attract such charges.
Sections Cited
Section 172, Section 73(1), Section 74(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 13.03.2023
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction so as to direct the respondents to make system workable so that necessary compliance with regard to amendment in Registration Certificate and filing of return be done by petitioner or (ii) To order open the portal m peculiar facts and circumstances or direct to the Respondent accept manually amendment application filed regarding deletion of Director and addition of Director and the returns be also allowed to be filed manually and a direction not to take coercive step and Respondents be directed to address the present difficulty being faced by Appellant
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.