RSB Transmissions (India) Limited VS Union of India

The central issue in the present writ petition revolves around the interpretation of provisions within the GST Act regarding the treatment of tax payments made via valid challans by registered individuals before filing their GSTR 3B returns. Specifically, the question is whether such payments can be considered as fulfilling the tax liability for the relevant period, and whether interest can be imposed for delayed filing of GSTR 3B under Section 50 of the Act.

The petitioner in this case contests the imposition of interest amounting to Rs. 13,23,783/- due to delays in filing GSTR 3B returns for the period spanning July 2017 to December 2019. This interest was levied at the applicable rate as per Section 50 of the CGST Act, as indicated in the letter dated 22nd July 2021, which is annexed to the writ petition.

The details of the tax periods, dates of filing GSTR 3B returns, and the computation of interest for the delay are presented in a tabular chart within the aforementioned letter. While the petitioner acknowledges the accuracy of these details, they dispute the liability to pay interest for the delay in filing GSTR 3B returns for the relevant periods. Their contention rests on the assertion that the tax amounts had already been deposited into the Electronic Cash Ledger prior to filing the GSTR 3B returns.

In essence, the petitioner argues that the tax payments made via valid challans should be deemed sufficient to discharge their tax liability for the respective periods, thereby absolving them of any obligation to pay interest for delayed filing of GSTR 3B returns. This interpretation hinges on the understanding that the purpose of the tax payment, made prior to filing the returns, was to fulfill the tax liability for the specified period.

The adjudication of this case involves a careful examination of the relevant provisions within the GST Act, particularly those pertaining to tax payments, filing of returns, and the imposition of interest for delays. The decision will have implications not only for the petitioner but potentially for other registered individuals navigating similar circumstances within the GST framework.

The crux of the matter in this writ petition revolves around whether the amount of tax deposited via valid challans by a registered taxpayer before filing the GSTR 3B returns can be considered as fulfilling their tax liability for the respective period and whether interest can be imposed for delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns under Section 50 of the GST Act.

The petitioner contends that they have already deposited the tax amount prior to filing the GSTR-3B returns, thus absolving them of any liability for interest on delayed filing. They argue that interest should only be levied on the portion of tax debited from the Electronic Cash Ledger after the due date for filing GSTR-3B returns.

However, the respondent insists on the payment of interest for the delayed filing, citing Section 50 of the CGST Act and rejecting the petitioner’s argument. They highlight a case precedent and emphasize that no technical glitches or timely notifications to the jurisdictional officer and GSTIN help desk were made in the petitioner’s case.

The respondent has requested the petitioner to pay the outstanding interest amount, distinguishing their case from a previous judgment by the Gujarat High Court. They assert that the tax deposits made through challans reflect in the Electronic Cash Ledger but argue that this does not exempt the petitioner from liability for interest on delayed filings.

In summary, the key issue revolves around whether the tax deposits made prior to filing GSTR-3B returns absolve the petitioner from liability for interest on delayed filings, as per the provisions of the GST Act, and whether the circumstances of the case warrant a deviation from precedent.

The writ petition in question revolves around the interpretation of certain provisions of the GST Act, specifically focusing on whether the amount deposited as tax prior to the filing of GSTR 3B returns can be considered as discharge of tax liability and whether interest can be imposed on delayed filing of GSTR 3B returns.

In this case, the petitioner, a registered company, has been charged with interest amounting to Rs. 13,23,783 due to delays in filing GSTR 3B returns for the period of July 2017 to December 2019, as per Section 50 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contests this interest levy, arguing that they had already deposited a significant portion of the tax liability prior to filing the returns. They assert that interest should only be levied on the portion of tax that was paid after the due date of filing the returns.

Respondent No. 3, in their response to the petitioner’s arguments, emphasizes that the mere deposit of an amount in the Electronic Cash Ledger does not automatically constitute tax payment to the government. They argue that the Electronic Cash Ledger is a record of taxpayer transactions and that the tax is only considered deposited in the government’s account once the GSTR 3B return is filed and the cash ledger is debited accordingly.

The petitioner further seeks a declaration that interest can only be levied when the government is deprived of tax beyond the due date for payment, asserting that no interest should be charged on tax amounts deposited before the due date of filing GSTR 3B returns. They also argue that Section 50(1) of the CGST Act should be interpreted in a manner that prevents arbitrary and confiscatory levies of interest.

In addition to challenging the interest levy, the petitioner seeks the quashing of a letter rejecting their representation for the refund of interest charged on tax amounts deposited before the due date of filing GSTR 3B returns. They request consequential relief in the form of refund of the interest amount.

The petitioner’s factual details, as presented in the pleadings, are undisputed by all parties involved.

In support of their arguments, the petitioner’s learned Senior Counsel contends that interest should only be imposed on delayed payment of tax, not on delayed filing of returns, citing Section 47 of the Act, which provides for late fees for delayed return filing. They assert that since a significant amount of the tax liability was already deposited before the due date, interest should not be levied on that portion.

The case raises significant legal questions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions within the GST Act, particularly concerning the timing and conditions under which interest can be imposed on tax liabilities.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: