M/S. Neel Kamal And Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Barasat Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Neel Kamal & Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the inaction or decision of the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Barasat Charge & Ors. The core of the petition was a prayer for permission to pay outstanding tax and interest in installments. The petitioners cited financial hardship as the reason for this request. They also pointed to a delay on the part of the respondent State GST authority in detecting the revenue mistake that led to the current dues. The writ petition was filed under WPA 28930 of 2023.

Held

The Court considered the case made out by the petitioners, particularly concerning their financial hardship and the delay by the respondent State GST authority in detecting the revenue mistake. In the interest of justice, the Court decided to grant the petitioners the facility of paying the tax and interest dues in ten equal monthly installments. Each installment is to be paid by the tenth day of every English calendar month, commencing from February 2024. The Court stipulated that if the petitioners default on any installment payment within the granted time, this order for installments will cease to be effective, and the respondent authority will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners as per the law. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in detail, but the decision was based on equitable considerations and the court's inherent power to grant relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an order granting them installments for payment of tax and interest dues, considering their stated financial hardship and the alleged delay by the revenue authorities in detecting the error. (Mixed question of law and fact, potentially touching upon principles of equity and administrative discretion). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued for the grant of installments due to financial hardship and highlighted the delay by the respondent State GST authority in identifying the revenue discrepancy. The petitioner sought leniency and a structured payment plan. Respondent: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondent State GST authority or the CGST & CX representatives. However, the court's decision implies that the respondents' position was considered or that the court exercised its discretion.