Disposed

Tvl. Amk Athencottasan Muthamizh v. State Tax Officer

Madras HC17 Nov 2023WP(MD)/5963/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging penalty and demand notices for belated GST payment. Instead of granting quashing, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Commissioner for relief under Section 80 of the GST Act for instalment payments, leaving the merit for commissioner's decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit an application to the Commissioner for monthly instalments as per Section 80 of the GST Act; Commissioner to pass orders on merits.

Tvl. Amk Athencottasan Muthamizh Vs State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023 and

¶7

WMP(MD)Nos.5572, 5574, 5576, 5577 of 2023

¶8

Tvl.AMK Athencottasan Muthamizh Kazhagam Man Power Services Rep. by its Director R.Arul Jothi

¶9

.. Petitioner in both WPs

¶10

¶11

1.State Tax Officer, Nagercoil – 1.

¶12

2.Deputy Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Building, Nagercoil.

¶13

3.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Court Road, Nagercoil.

¶14

4.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Asaripallam – 629 201, Nagercoil.

¶15

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023

¶18

5.The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai. .. Respondents in both Wps

¶19

[R.5 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated .01.2024]

¶20

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Ref.No.33ABBFA 8472 G1ZK/2019-20 dated 09.02.2022 and Ref.No.33ABBFA 8472 G1ZK/2020-21 dated 14.02.2022, respectively, quash the same for procedural irregularity and for want of jurisdiction and directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's applications dated 24.11.2022, 09.01.2023, 17.02.2023.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.N.Mariappan

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader for R.1, R.2, R.5

¶23

Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R.3, R.4 [In both WPs] *****

¶24

2/7

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is a service provider, providing man power services to the Central Government Departments and Tamil Nadu Government Corporations. The petitioner has failed to pay the GST on time for the year 2019-20 and 2020-21. Therefore, the respondents 1 & 2 have imposed a penalty and directed the petitioner to pay the interest as per Section 50(1) of the GST Act and also made a demand u/s.73(3) of the GST Act. Challenging the same, the petitioner has moved these writ petitions.

¶29

2.When the writ petitions came up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that they are not pressing the relief sought for, however, requested to consider the case of the petitioner as per Section 80 of the GST Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, during the Covid-19 period, the petitioner has belatedly paid the GST and the Commissioner is having powers u/s.80 of the Act to grant 24 instalments for the payment of interest, which was imposed u/s.50(1) of the Act.

¶30

3/7

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023

¶33

3.Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that apart from the

¶34

Covid-19 period, the petitioner has submitted the GST returns belatedly for the period 2019-20 also. That apart, for invoking the provision u/s.80 of the Act, the petitioner has to submit an application before the Commissioner and if any such application is filed, the same would be considered on its merits.

¶35

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the available materials.

¶36

5.The petitioner has challenged the demand notice issued u/s.73(3) of the Act. For the belated payment of GST returns, the Department has imposed a penalty of interest as per Section 50 of the Act. For the payment of this amount, the Act provides for some instalments not exceeding 24 months, as per Section 80 of the Act. For better appreciation, Section 80 of the GST Act is extracted as under:-

¶37

“On an application filed by a taxable person, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time for payment or allow payment of any amount due under

¶38

4/7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023

¶41

this Act, other than the amount due as per the liability self-assessed in any return, by such person in monthly instalments not exceeding twenty four, subject to payment of interest under section 50 and subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed:

¶42

Provided that where there is default in payment of any one instalment on its due date, the whole outstanding balance payable on such date shall become due and payable forthwith and shall, without any further notice being served on the person, be liable for recovery.”

¶43

6.In view of the above provision, this Court suo-motu impleads the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai, as a party to this writ petition and Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader is to take notice on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent.

¶44

7.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit an application to the newly impleaded respondent / Commissioner seeking monthly instalments as per Section 80 of the Act. On receipt of such application, the Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders. It is made clear 5/7

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023

¶47

that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim and the Commissioner is to pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶48

In fine, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶49

Index : Yes / No 17.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes gk

¶50

¶51

1.State Tax Officer, Nagercoil – 1.

¶52

2.Deputy Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Building, Nagercoil.

¶53

3.The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶54

6/7

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023

¶57

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶58

¶59

WP(MD)Nos.5963, 5964 of 2023

¶60

17.11.2023

¶61

7/7

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tvl. Amk Athencottasan Muthamizh v. State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Amk Athencottasan Muthamizh v. State Tax Officer

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

Mookkaiah, Vs the District Collector

P. Anupriya Vs the Registrar

M.Paramasivam, Vs the Secretary

A.Thenmozhi Vs G.Joseph Jeyaseelan

K. Natarajan Vs the Chief Engineer

A.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector