Maya Construction vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court considered the facts and circumstances, including the submissions of both parties and the Notification dated June 1, 2021. The Court set aside the impugned suspension of registration order dated August 7, 2023. This relief was granted on the condition that the petitioner pays the late fee for filing returns at the rate indicated in the judgment within 30 days from the date of the order. The Court clarified that if the petitioner fails to pay the late fee as stipulated and within the given timeframe, the suspension order dated August 7, 2023, shall stand revived. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the core of the decision hinges on the conditional payment of late fees as per the applicable rate.

Facts

The petitioner, Maya Construction, represented by its Proprietor Biwajit Bose, filed a writ petition challenging the demand for late fees by the West Bengal GST Authority. The Authority sought to impose a late fee of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. 5,000 SGST and Rs. 5,000 CGST) per return for the period from June 2021 to the present. The petitioner contended that this demand was contrary to Proviso 3 of a Notification dated June 1, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The petitioner stated willingness to pay the applicable late fee of Rs. 10,000 per return for March, April, and May 2021. The petitioner's GST registration was suspended by a show-cause notice dated August 7, 2023, for non-payment of late fees from April 2021 onwards.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for late fees from June 2021 onwards, as sought by the West Bengal GST Authority, is contrary to Proviso 3 of the Notification dated June 1, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the demand for late fees was inconsistent with the aforementioned notification. They stated their willingness to pay the late fees applicable for March, April, and May 2021, which they understood to be Rs. 10,000 per return. The petitioner highlighted that their registration was suspended for non-payment of these disputed late fees. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or its representatives regarding the interpretation of the notification or the validity of the late fee demand. The court proceeded to consider the submissions of both parties and the relevant notification.