Dismissed

Krishna Steel Rolling Mills, Represented by Its Managing Partner, R. Elangovan, v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Arrears Recovery)

Kerala HC15 Sept 2023WP(C)/15991/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 2019 GST assessment order filed four years late, holding it unsustainable. It directed the petitioner to approach the Commissioner for installment payment under Section 80 of the CGST Act within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Commissioner for tax installments under Section 80 CGST Act; interim order continues.

Krishna Steel Rolling Mills, Represented by Its Managing… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 24TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 15991 OF 2023

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

KRISHNA STEEL ROLLING MILLS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, R. ELANGOVAN, RRVIII/1041, KRISHNA STEEL ROLLING MILLS, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE, KANJIKODE P.O, PALAKKAD, KERALA., PIN – 678 621.

¶5

BY ADVS. SRIKANTH THAMBAN SRAVAN M.S.

¶6

RESPONDENT:

¶7

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (ARREARS RECOVERY), STATE GST COMPLEX, BEHIND CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, KERALA., PIN – 678 001.

¶8

OTHER PRESENT:

¶9

JASMINE M.M.-GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

WP(C) NO. 15991 OF 2023

¶13

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶14

--------------------------------------------

¶15

WP(C) NO. 15991 OF 2023

¶16

--------------------------------------------

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2023

¶18

The writ petition is filed under Article 226

¶19

of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs;

¶20

“i. To issue a writ, direction, or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent to stay and revoke the recovery proceedings initiated on the date of 06^th May 2023 until a proper hearing is provided to the petitioner by the Respondent

¶21

ii. To issue a writ, direction, or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent to desist from unilaterally and arbitrarily deciding the Tax liabilities without considering the facts and circumstances of the matter.

¶22

iii. To issue a writ, direction, or order in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent for the provision of a proper hearing and

¶23

¶24

WP(C) NO. 15991 OF 2023

¶25

not to interpret the matter in a literal sense.

¶26

iv. To issue a writ, direction, or order in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent for the provision of a window for the payment of tax if further assessed after the hearing with the Respondent in an installment manner as due to the hectic and colossal financial crunch.

¶27

v. To issue a writ, direction, or order in the nature of mandamus or any other writ which this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of this matter for the effective implementation of Justice.”

¶28

The petitioner after filing GSTR-1 did not file the return in GSTR-3B. It appears that the petitioner was assessed to the GST as per Exts.P1, P1A, P1B, P1C and P1D for a total outstanding amount of more than rupees five Crores. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessing authority has not calculated the tax properly and on the basis of wrong calculation, the

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 15991 OF 2023

¶31

assessment orders has been passed in respect of which recovery notices Exts. P1, P1A, P1B, P1C and P1D have been issued.

¶32

The assessment order has been passed on 28.11.2019. The petitioner has not challenged the assessment order by filing statutory appeals. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition after almost four years from the date of assessment order. This Court does not find this writ petition as maintainable against the assessment order that was passed in 2019.

¶33

In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed. At this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may grant some installments for making payment of the arrears of tax.

¶34

Under Section 80 of the CGST Act, there is power vested in the Commissioner to grant upto

¶35

¶36

WP(C) NO. 15991 OF 2023

¶37

12 installments for the payment of arrears of tax. If the petitioner wants to deposit the tax in installments, the petitioner may approach the Commissioner within a period of seven days from today, and then the Commissioner should decide the application within another period of seven days thereafter for granting installments for payment of arrears of tax as assessed by the assessing authority.

¶38

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is dismissed as above. However, interim order if any, shall continue till a decision is taken by the Commissioner as directed above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶41

rpr

¶42

¶43

WP(C) NO. 15991 OF 2023

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15991/2023

¶45

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit P1	THE VIDE NOTICES ISSUED ON THE DATE OF 06TH MAY 2023
Exhibit P1A	THE VIDE NOTICES ISSUED ON THE DATE OF 06TH MAY 2023
Exhibit P1B	THE VIDE NOTICES ISSUED ON THE DATE OF 06TH MAY 2023
Exhibit P1C	THE VIDE NOTICES ISSUED ON THE DATE OF 06TH MAY 2023
Exhibit P1D	THE VIDE NOTICES ISSUED ON THE DATE OF 06TH MAY 2023
Exhibit P2	THE FORM GSTR-1 DATED 10TH AUGUST 2019, 11TH OCTOBER 2019, 09TH NOVEMBER 2019, 10TH DECEMBER 2019 AND 10TH DECEMBER 2019
Exhibit P3	THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 DATED 20TH DECEMBER 2020
Exhibit P4	THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 31ST MARCH 2020
Exhibit P5	THE FORM GST DRC-07 DATED 29.01.2020
Exhibit P5A	THE FORM GST DRC-07 DATED 10.03.2020
Exhibit P5B	THE FORM GST DRC-07 DATED 10.03.2020
Exhibit P5C	THE FORM GST DRC-07 DATED 10.03.2020
Exhibit P5D	THE FORM GST DRC-07 DATED 14.08.2020
Exhibit P6	THE BOOKS OF CALCULATION AND THE AUTO- POPULATED GSTR-2A FOR ITC DATED 12.05.2023

Krishna Steel Rolling Mills, Represented by Its Managing Partner, R. Elangovan, v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Arrears Recovery)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Steel Rolling Mills, Represented by Its Managing Partner, R. Elangovan, v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Arrears Recovery)

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

B. Radhakrishnan, Vs Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Binshad P.M., Vs State of Kerala

Cherian Kariyakulath Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Ahamed Thazhe Chalikal, Vs the Tahsildar

K.Santhosh Kumar Vs the Elanthoor Grama Panchayath

George Koshy Vs the State of Kerala