Thriveni Sainik Mining Private Limited Through Its Chief Financial Officer Manoj Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax

Held

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Chanchal Jain, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition on instructions. The Court, in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No specific findings were made by the Court on the merits of the case or the issues raised by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided as the matter was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Thriveni Sainik Mining Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging two orders issued by the respondents, the Deputy Commissioner (Prev) and the Superintendent of CGST & CX. The orders imposed a liability on the petitioner to pay interest under Section 50 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns and consequently, delayed payment of "Gross Tax Liability" for the financial year 2019-20 up to December 2019. The total interest demanded amounted to Rs. 2,44,49,682/-. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and declare the demand for interest as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, particularly as it was allegedly made without a show cause notice or an adjudicatory order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for delayed payment of "Gross Tax Liability" due to delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns for the financial year 2019-20 up to December 2019, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the said Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in demanding interest amounting to Rs. 2,44,49,682/- for the period 2019-20 up to December 2019 was arbitrary and illegal. They argued that the interest was determined by calculating the period from the due date of filing the GSTR-3B return to the actual date of filing. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the demand for interest was made without issuing any show cause notice and without passing any adjudicatory order, rendering it wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue.