Disposed

MD Samsuddin Ahmed v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Sept 2022WP(C)/5458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a ruling to pay an additional GST amount by way of installments. The bench, noting the statutory provision for installments under Section 80 of the GST Act, disposed of the writ petition and granted time to apply to the designated authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted two weeks time to file an application for installments with Respondent No. 2; prohibition on coercive action until such application is resolved.

MD Samsuddin Ahmed Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — GST and Indirect Tax | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010166952022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5458/2022

¶5

MD SAMSUDDIN AHMED PROPRITOR OF M/S S. AHMED AND CO., MULIABARI, P.O.- DIGBOI, PIN- 786171, DIST.- TINISUKIA, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST HQRS. GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSAM.

¶10

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

¶11

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

¶12

DIBRUGARH MILAN NAGAR F LANE P.O.- C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH- 786003.

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

4:JOINT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX MILAN NAGAR F LANE

¶15

P.O.- C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH- 786003.

¶16

5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

¶17

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DIBRUGARH MILAN NAGAR F LANE P.O.- C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH- 786003.

¶18

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT

¶19

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DIGBOI RANGE TINSUKIA DIVISION IOC (AOD) NEW MARKET ABOVE INDIAN BANK

¶20

P.O.- DIGBOI TINSUKIA- 786171

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MISS. S PRASAD

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 07-09-2022

¶26

Heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel GST authority appearing for the respondents.

¶29

From the case projected in the writ petition, it appears that even after payment of Goods and Service Tax (GST) by the petitioner, the authorities had made an assessment of all his files and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay an additional amount of Rs. 27,98,414/- as GST.

¶30

Ms. Bhattacharjee submits that her client is not disputing the amount claimed by the respondents but the petitioner is only requesting for payment of the amount by way of installments. Ms. Bhattacharjee has submitted that her client has already started making payment of the aforesaid amount by way of installments and a sum of Rs. 5,56,782/- has already been deposited by the petitioner.

¶31

Responding to the above Mr. Keyal, learned standing counsel, GST authorities submitted that as per Section 80 of the GST Act, there is provision for payment of GST by way of installments and the respondent No. 2 is the designated authority to consider such a request. Therefore, if the petitioner approaches the respondent No. 2 with appropriate application, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶32

The petitioner’s counsel is also agreeable to such a recourse.

¶33

In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. With the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of motion hearing by granting 02 weeks time to the petitioner to file fresh application before the respondent No. 2 for consideration of his prayer for payment of the

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

amount by way of installments.

¶36

If such an application is submitted by the petitioner, the same be considered in accordance with law and an order be passed within 04 weeks thereafter. Until such time, no coercive action shall be initiated against the writ petitioner.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

¶39

Comparing Assistant

MD Samsuddin Ahmed v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Samsuddin Ahmed v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

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

Vedang Radio Technology Private Limited, and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

Safar Uddin Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Matilal Dey Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Subir Sarkar and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Syed Hazlul Hoque and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Manju Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.