Disposed

Concord Exotic Voyages (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Vice President, Sheik Ismail., v. the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2020WP/206/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging communications advising deposit of system-calculated interest under GST laws. Holding that the notifications were merely intimations allowing voluntary compliance, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue a show cause notice, thereby redressing the petitioner's apprehensions.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to the Respondents to issue necessary show cause notice in accordance with law.

Concord Exotic Voyages (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

 wp206-20dt.05-03-20

¶3

 Santosh

¶4

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO. 206 OF 2020

¶6

Concord Exotic Voyages (India) Pvt. Ltd. ….. Petitioner.

¶7

 Versus

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner of Central

¶9

Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise
and another.

¶10

.….. Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Joseph Kodianthara, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joao Mariano P.
Dias, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶12

Ms Priyanka Kamat, Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

¶13

Coram : M.S. Sonak & Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, JJ. Date : 5th March, 2020.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

Heard Mr. Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior

¶16

Advocate, who appears along with Mr. Joao Mariano Dias for the
Petitioner and Ms. Priyanka Kamat, learned Standing Counsel for the
Respondents.

¶17

2. The challenge in this Petition is to the communications dated
7th February, 2020 and 17th February, 2020 at Exhibit P-2 and
Exhibit P-3, advising the Petitioners to deposit certain amounts
towards interest which are stated to be calculated by the system as

¶18

¶19

 wp206-20dt.05-03-20

¶20

per the provisions of Section 50 of the Central Goods and Sales Tax
Act, 2017.

¶21

3. Mr. Kodianthara, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the Petitioner, has raised several grounds, including the ground that
there has been no adjudication or compliance with the principles of
natural justice and fair play before the impugned communications
came to be issued to the Petitioner.

¶22

4. Ms. P. Kamat, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents,
on instructions, states that the impugned communications merely
intimated the Petitioners of the liability calculated by the system.
Ms. Kamat submits that the impugned communications, in fact,
afford the Petitioner an opportunity for voluntary compliance. In
case this opportunity is not availed by the Petitioners, appropriate
legal action for recovery of the interest due for the delay in filing of
returns shall be initiated. She clarifies that this means that a show
cause notice will be issued. Upon service of such show cause notice,
the Petitioners will be given an opportunity to put-forth its case and
in that sense, there will be compliance with the principles of nature
justice. On instructions, she states that the impugned
communications are not the demands in that sense and, therefore,
there will be no question of any coercive action on the basis of
impugned communications.

¶23

¶24

 wp206-20dt.05-03-20

¶25

5. We accept the aforesaid statements made by Ms. Kamat, on
the basis of instructions. In view of such statements, we think that it
is not necessary to entertain the present Petition since, the
apprehensions expressed by the Petitioner in this Petition, stand
substantially redressed at the present stage.

¶26

6. Therefore, by granting liberty to the Respondents to issue
necessary show cause notice in accordance with law, we dispose of
this Petition.

¶27

7. We make it clear that we have not adjudicated upon the rival contentions and, therefore, all contentions of all parties, are left open to be determined by the appropriate authority, at the appropriate stage.

¶28

8. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

 Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J. M.S. Sonak, J.

Concord Exotic Voyages (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Vice President, Sheik Ismail., v. the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Concord Exotic Voyages (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Vice President, Sheik Ismail., v. the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Palan and Anr., Vs Yogesh Jagdale.

Xavier Mario Leonardo Jose Almeida., Vs State of Goa, through Chief Secretary and 57 Ors.

Dinesh Amonkar., Vs State of Goa, through Chief Secretary and 57 Ors.

Alison Britto., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Goa State Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd., Rep. by Its Man. Director, Dr. Anil N. Fadte., Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Kanchan Chodankar, Constable, Badge No. 3818, Attached to Assolna Outpost of Cuncolim P. S. Vs State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.