M/S Geeta Traders vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's request regarding the late fee amount and their financial difficulties should be considered by the Superintendent, S.K Puri Range, CGST & CX, Patna. The Court opined that the discretion to address these issues rested with the Superintendent. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to approach the Superintendent by filing an appropriate request detailing their circumstances within four weeks from the date of the order. The Superintendent was then mandated to consider this request and pass an appropriate order within one month of receiving the application, allowing the petitioner to present exceptional circumstances. The writ application was disposed of with these directions, effectively remanding the matter for consideration at the Superintendent's level. No specific finding was given on the correctness of the late fee amount or the petitioner's financial claims, as these were left for the Superintendent to decide.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Geeta Traders, sought intervention against an order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), CGST and CX. The appellate order directed the proper officer to quantify the late fee payable by the appellant, who was then to deposit it and file due returns. The proper officer was also directed to revoke the cancellation of registration upon proof of payment, with liberty to initiate action under Section 73/74 of the GST Act, 2017 if government revenue was involved. Subsequently, the Superintendent, S.K Puri Range, CGST & CX, Patna, intimated the petitioner the amounts due. The petitioner had already deposited the difference in tax amounting to Rs. 6,10,354.12, but disputed the late fee amount of Rs. 1,24,700, claiming it should be Rs. 1,16,300. The petitioner also cited stringent financial conditions and requested an opportunity to operate for three months to deposit the late fee.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's dispute regarding the quantified late fee amount of Rs. 1,24,700, as opposed to their calculation of Rs. 1,16,300, warrants High Court intervention through a writ petition. 2. Whether the petitioner's financial difficulties and request for a three-month period to deposit the late fee should be considered by the Superintendent, CGST & CX, Patna. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the late fee amount demanded was incorrect and should be Rs. 1,16,300. They also contended that due to stringent financial conditions and a period of inactivity in business, they were unable to deposit the late fee immediately but could do so within three months if allowed to resume operations. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST & CX submitted that the discretion to grant relief or consider the petitioner's request lay solely with the Superintendent, CGST & CX, and therefore, no writ of mandamus was required from the High Court.