K.Mani, S/O. Kannan vs. The Secretary TO The

Facts

The petitioner, K. Mani, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a Mandamus. The prayer was to direct the respondents not to levy any fine on dealers of exempted goods who file their monthly returns after the 20th of every month, specifically those covered under Section 23 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The respondents included the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Affairs, Government of India; the Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance and Personnel Administrative Reforms, Tamil Nadu; and the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Madurai. The case was listed for hearing before a Division Bench.

Held

The petitioner sought permission from the Court to withdraw the writ petition. An endorsement to this effect was made by the petitioner in the court bundle. Consequently, the Court, in view of the petitioner's endorsement, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The Court did not delve into the merits of the legal question regarding the levy of fines on exempted goods dealers for delayed return filing, as the matter was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal. Therefore, no specific finding was made on the interpretation of Section 23 of the GST Act in relation to delayed returns for exempted goods dealers, nor was any ratio decidendi established on this substantive issue.

Key Issues

1. Whether dealers of exempted goods, covered under Section 23 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, are liable to be levied with fines for filing their monthly returns after the 20th of every month. The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that dealers of exempted goods should not be penalized for delayed filing of returns, implying that the provisions for fines might not apply or should be interpreted leniently in their case, particularly referencing Section 23 of the GST Act which deals with persons not liable to be registered. The respondents, represented by government counsel, were expected to argue for the applicability of the penal provisions for delayed filing of returns as per the GST Act and relevant rules, unless specific exemptions or leniency were provided by law or circulars. The judgment does not explicitly record the detailed arguments of the respondents.