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 Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner. The judgment records that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition on instructions. In view of this request, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. Therefore, there is no finding on the legality or arbitrariness of the interest demand, nor on the procedural violation of not issuing a show cause notice or passing an adjudicatory order. The Court's decision was solely based on the petitioner's request to withdraw the case. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the petition. No issues were expressly left undecided as the matter was withdrawn.

Facts

The petitioner, Thriveni Sainik Mining Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging two orders. The first order, dated 14/17.02.2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Prev), imposed interest liability under Section 50 of the GST Act, 2017, for delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns and consequent delayed payment of gross tax liability for the financial year 2019-20 up to December 2019. The second order, dated 14.02.2020, issued by the Superintendent of CGST & CX Range-IV, directed the petitioner to pay interest for the financial year 2017-18 within seven days, failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and declare the demand for interest amounting to Rs. 1,19,77,877/- for 2017-18 as arbitrary and illegal, particularly as it was allegedly demanded without a show cause notice or 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 tax due to delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns for the financial year 2019-20 up to December 2019, and for the financial year 2017-18, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of Section 50 of the Act? 2. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in realizing interest amounting to Rs. 1,19,77,877/- for the period 2017-18 without issuing any show cause notice and without passing any adjudicatory order is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner contended that the demand for interest was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the demand for interest for the financial year 2017-18, amounting to Rs. 1,19,77,877/-, was made without a show cause notice and without an adjudicatory order, thus violating Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The respondents were represented by counsel, but their specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment.