High Court Case Alerts

1. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna directed that interest liability under section 50(1) arises automatically on delayed filing of returns, irrespective of whether payment is made from electronic credit ledger or electronic cash ledger.

In the case of K Vinod Chandran, CJ. And Harish Kumar, J. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 11621 and 3592 of 2023, (April 19, 2024)

In the present case, Assessee failed to pay interest on delayed payment through DRC-03 in the financial year 2018-19 and also failed to pay interest on delayed cash payment through DRC-03 for the financial year 2017-18. Revenue issued a temporary order of recovery demanding payment of interest.

Held that interest liability arises automatically on delayed filing of returns irrespective of whether payment is made from electronic credit ledger or electronic cash ledger. Thus assesse contention that interest was payable only when there was a delayed furnishing of return and debit made from electronic cash ledger was rejected. Interest liability was not dependent on availability of credit in electronic credit ledger as tax payment occurs only on filing of returns.

Therefore, Writ petition was to be dismissed stating that a remand for said assessment periods would be unnecessary, as interest liability arises even if there was credit available in electronic credit ledger.

2. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras directed that order passed by the adjudicating authority was to be set aside and adjudicating authority was to be directed to issue a fresh order after providing an opportunity to the assesse.

In the case of Tvl Aditya Automobiles V. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, J. W.P. NO. 9903 of 2024 W.M.P. Nos. 10912 & 10915 of 2024 (April 17, 2024)

In the present case, petitioner received a notice in form ASMT-10 dated 08.06.2023 alleging discrepancy between the petitioner’s GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns. The petitioner replied thereto on 05.07.2023 stated that there is no difference and that he has paid excess tax in GSTR-3B. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 26.08.2023 and impugned order dated 08.12.2023. Petitioner asserts that he had not replied to the show cause notice because the same was uploaded on “view additional notices and order” tab of GST portal and not communicated to him through any other mode.

Held that documents on records disclosed that petitioner had replied to notice in form ASMT-10 but his reply to notice in ASMT-10 was not taken into consideration. In these circumstances albeit by putting petitioner on terms it was just and appropriate that petitioner was to be provided an opportunity and impugned order was to be set aside on condition that petitioner remits 10% of disputed tax demand within two weeks and also remit to submit a reply to show cause notice.

Therefore, on receipt of petitioner’s reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed demand was received, assessing authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to petitioner including a personal hearing and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months.