W.P. (T) No.2043 of 2020 has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 6th November 2018 (Annexure-6) whereby the petitioner has been called upon to pay interest for a sum of Rs.72,49,126/- on account of alleged irregular input tax credit taken by it on 24th August 2017 and reverted on 13th August 2018.

Petitioner has further sought declaration that it is not liable to pay interest for such mistake in filing GSTR-3B for the month of July 2017 wherein inadvertently he had included the transitional credit amount of Rs.3,11,43,255/- again though it was filed in GSTR TRAN-1 as transitional credit in terms of Section 140 of the Act.

The said repetition being due to human error, absence of adequate practice/familiarity in the working of the new concept of Goods and Services Tax laws, which had been introduced in 2017 itself. Immediately, in July, 2018 petitioner took step to reverse the said entry to rectify the error. In GSTR-3B of July 2018, the sum of Rs.3,11,43,255/- has been reversed towards Input Tax Credit of SGST.

Petitioner has also sought quashing of letter dated 28th January 2019 (Annexure-10) issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the objection of the petitioner against raising of the demand of interest under Section 50 of the Jharkhand Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (herein after to be referred as JGST Act) has been rejected.

It is specific case of the petitioner that the said amount of transitional credit mistakenly mentioned in form GSTR-3B for July 2017 was never utilized by the petitioner company against the output tax liabilities arising out of daily business transactions.

In W.P.(T) No.2051 of 2020, petitioner has challenged the part of refund sanction order dated 9th November 2018 (Annexure-3), so far it relates to adjustment of refund against the demand of interest made in terms of letter dated 6th November 2018 impugned in W.P.(T) No.2043/2020.

Petitioner submits that interest under Section 50 of the JGST Act, 2017 which is primarily compensatory in nature cannot be levied upon the petitioner if the ITC has not been availed twice.

Petitioner has also laid challenge to the order dated 31st January 2020 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal preferred by him against part of the refund sanction order dated 9th November 2018 has been rejected.