Sonu Ansari vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sonu Ansari, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the refund of late fees collected while filing his GSTR-3B returns under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. These collected late fees were deposited in his Cash Ledger on the GST Portal and he wished to utilize them for discharging his tax liabilities. The petitioner also challenged the legality of Notification No. 76/2018 dated December 31, 2018, which waived late fees for failure to furnish GSTR-3B returns beyond a certain amount, subject to specified conditions. The petitioner sought these directions without first approaching the concerned authorities for a refund application or representation.
Held
The Court held that if the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the late fees already deposited, he should have first made an application claiming the refund to the concerned authority in accordance with the law. The petition seeking directions for the refund without approaching the respondents by way of an appropriate application/representation cannot be entertained by the High Court. Regarding the challenge to Notification No. 76/2018, the Court observed that the notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 128 of the Act and was published in the official gazette. As a statutory notification, its validity is not open to examination by a Single Bench. The petitioner was advised that it is open for him to file a petition challenging the notification before the Division Bench, if so advised. The Court did not decide on the merits of the refund claim or the validity of the notification itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of late fees collected and deposited in his Cash Ledger, and if so, whether this Court can direct such a refund without the petitioner first exhausting the statutory remedy of applying to the concerned authority. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is entitled to a refund of the late fees collected and deposited in his Cash Ledger, which he wishes to utilize for his tax liabilities. He approached the High Court directly seeking directions for this refund. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the Court's observations, implicitly argued that the petitioner should have first approached the concerned authorities by way of an appropriate application or representation to claim the refund before approaching the High Court. Furthermore, the respondents would likely contend that the validity of a statutory notification issued by the Central Government is not open to examination by a Single Bench.
Sections Cited
Section 47, Section 128
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Judgment 11/09/2019
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to refund the late fee collected from the petitioner while filing the return under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) in Form GSTR-3B in his Cash Ledger in GST Portal so that he can utilise the same for discharging his tax liabilities. The petitioner has also questioned the legality of notification No.76/2018 dated 31.12.18, whereby in (2 of 2) [CW-12650/2019] exercise of the power conferred by Section 128 of the Act, the amount of late fee payable by the registered person for failure to furnish the return in the Form GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2017 onwards by the due date under Section 47 of the Act, which is in excess of an amount of twenty-five rupees for every day during which such failure continues, has been waived on the conditions specified in the notification.
If the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the late fee already deposited, nothing prevented him from making an application claiming the refund to the concerned authority in accordance with law. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions as aforesaid for the refund of the amount without approaching the respondents by way of appropriate application/representation, cannot be entertained by this court.
Indisputably, the impugned notification is issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 120 of the Act, which already stands published in the official gazette. The notification issued being a statutory notification, the validity thereof is not open to be examined by the Single Bench. It is always open for the petitioner to file the petition challenging the notification before the Division Bench, if so advised.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the observations as above. (SANGEET LODHA),J ADITYA/
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.