Daejung Moparts Pvt. Ltd VS Assistant Commissioner Of CGST

Mr. M.A. Mudi Mannan, acting as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, the learned senior panel counsel representing the GST department, appeared before the Court. Mr. Sundareswaran had accepted the notice on behalf of both the official respondents involved in the case. This means that Mr. Mannan is advocating on behalf of the petitioner who has filed the writ petition, while Mr. Sundareswaran is representing the government’s stance concerning the Goods and Services Tax (GST) issues raised in the petition. The case is being reviewed by the Court, which will consider the arguments presented by both counsels.

In a court proceeding, Mr. M.A. Mudi Mannan, the counsel representing the writ petitioner, and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, the senior panel counsel for GST who had accepted notice on behalf of both respondents (official respondents), presented their arguments. The court, with the agreement of the learned counsel from both sides, decided to hear and dispose of the main writ petition in this session.

The case at hand involves a matter similar to another case previously heard by the court, sharing an identical set of facts but differing in the nature of the business and specific numerical values. In the previous case, the court issued an order directing the respondents to consider the writ petitioner’s objections and requests, particularly focusing on the issue of whether interest is payable on the Input Tax Credit (ITC) component as well.

This summary of events indicates that the court is addressing a recurring legal question about the applicability of interest on the ITC component in GST-related disputes, reflecting a consistent legal approach in such cases.

Mr. M.A. Mudi Mannan, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, the learned senior panel counsel for GST who accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, appeared before the Court. With the consent of both parties’ counsel, the main writ petition was heard and disposed of by the Court.

In today’s session, the Court addressed a similar case with an identical set of facts, though the specifics of the business and numerical values differed. In that case, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s objections and requests regarding whether interest is payable on the ITC (Input Tax Credit) component as well.

Given that there is no dispute that the issues in both cases are identical, today’s order should be read in conjunction with and as a continuation of the core order made in W.P. No. 15624 of 2019. However, the operative portion of the order will differ based on the available bank balance in the writ petitioner’s account and other numerical values and dates relevant to the current case.

Mr. M.A. Mudi Mannan, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, the learned senior panel counsel for GST who accepted notice on behalf of both official respondents, presented their case before the Court. With mutual consent from both parties, the Court proceeded to address and dispose of the main writ petition directly.

The Court referenced a recent decision in a similar case with comparable circumstances, where an order was issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s objections and requests regarding whether interest is payable on the Input Tax Credit (ITC) component. Recognizing the identical nature of the issue in the current case, the Court stated that this order should be read alongside the core order made in W.P.No.15624 of 2019, though acknowledging differences in numerical values and dates. The operative portion of the order varies due to the balance in the petitioner’s bank account.

Following the precedent set in W.P.No.15624 of 2019, the Court disposed of the current writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner provided a computer-generated statement for their bank account, detailing the account number, customer ID, bank branch, address, email ID, and IFSC code. This information demonstrated the balance available in the petitioner’s account at the relevant time.

Mr. M.A. Mudi Mannan, the learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, the learned senior panel counsel for GST, both appeared before the court. With mutual consent, the court proceeded to hear and dispose of the main writ petition.

In a similar case with analogous circumstances, the court had previously ordered the respondents to consider the writ petitioner’s objections regarding the payment of interest on the Input Tax Credit (ITC) component. Since the issue in the current case was identical, the court’s previous order was to be considered in conjunction with the present case, albeit with adjustments to numerical values and dates.

Based on the available bank balance in the writ petitioner’s account, the court issued the following directions:

a) The writ petitioner presented a computer-generated statement of their bank account, showing a balance of Rs. 33,77,394/- as of 12.06.2019.

b) The bank, which was not listed as a respondent, was instructed by the court to pay Rs. 9,15,121/- to the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Maraimalainagar Division, out of the aforementioned balance.

c) Apart from the specific payment mentioned above, all other aspects of the communication dated 21.05.2019 were upheld.

Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Mr. M.A. Mudi Mannan, the learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, along with Mr. V. Sundareswaran, the learned senior panel counsel (GST), representing both the respondents, appeared before the Court. With mutual agreement between the counsels, the Court proceeded to hear and dispose of the main writ petition.

In a similar case with identical circumstances, the Court had previously ordered the respondents to consider the objections and requests of the writ petitioner regarding the payment of interest on the Input Tax Credit (ITC) component. Since there is no dispute that the issues in both cases are the same, the previous order is to be considered in conjunction with the present case, albeit with adjustments in numerical values and dates.

Following the precedent set in the earlier case, the Court disposed of the present writ petition with the following directives:

a) The writ petitioner provided a computer-generated statement of their bank account, showing a balance of Rs. 33,77,394/- as of 12.06.2019.

b) The bank, which was not listed as a respondent, is instructed by the Registry to pay an admitted sum of Rs. 9,15,121/- to the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Maraimalainagar Division, out of the aforementioned balance.

c) A communication dated 21.05.2019 from the first respondent to the bank is set aside, allowing the writ petitioner to operate their bank account, except for the admitted sum mentioned above.

d) If the aforementioned amount is paid by the bank by 20.06.2019, a communication dated 21.05.2019 from the second respondent to the bank will also be set aside.

e) Upon payment of the sum by the bank, the second respondent is directed to reconsider the points raised in the writ petitioner’s reply dated 10.05.2019 and pass an order within one week, communicating it to the petitioner.

f) If the decision of the second respondent favors the writ petitioner, the matter will be considered resolved.

These directives aim to resolve the dispute between the writ petitioner and the respondents, ensuring that any outstanding amounts are settled and further actions are taken promptly by the concerned authorities.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: