F1 Auto Components Pvt Ltd VS State Tax officer

In the case at hand, Mr. P.V. Sudakar, representing the petitioner, and Mr. TNC Kaushik, the Government Advocate representing the respondent, were heard. Although no counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent, the matter under consideration revolves solely around a legal issue without any contested factual matters. Therefore, the absence of a counter does not impede the progress of the case, allowing it to be adjudicated based on the legal principles involved.

Given that the dispute is purely legal in nature, the court’s focus will be on interpreting and applying relevant laws to resolve the issue presented. This procedural posture indicates that the court’s determination will hinge on legal arguments and statutory interpretation rather than the evaluation of evidence or the resolution of factual disputes. The absence of contested facts simplifies the judicial process, enabling a more straightforward legal analysis and decision-making.

In summary, the hearing was conducted with both legal representatives presenting their arguments, and the court is positioned to make a decision based on the legal framework pertinent to the case, unaffected by any factual discrepancies.

In the case at hand, Mr. P.V. Sudakar, representing the petitioner, and Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, the Government Advocate for the respondent, were present for the hearing. Although no counter-affidavit was filed, the dispute revolves around a purely legal issue with no contested factual matters. The revenue counsel was prepared to proceed based on the instructions provided.

The petitioner challenged an order dated January 27, 2021, which imposed interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The contention concerned the imposition of interest on both the cash remittances and the remittances made through the adjustment of the electronic credit ledge.

In the case under review, Mr. P.V. Sudakar, representing the petitioner, and Mr. TNC. Kaushik, representing the respondent as the Government Advocate, presented their arguments. Despite no counter-affidavit being filed, the case centered on a purely legal issue with no disputed facts, allowing the revenue counsel to proceed based on provided instructions.

The core challenge was against an order dated January 27, 2021, which imposed interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This interest was levied on both cash remittances and remittances made through adjustments in the electronic credit register.

A key aspect of the dispute involved the second type of levy—interest on remittances through the electronic credit register. This issue had previously been addressed in the case of Maansarovar Motors Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner, Poonamallee Division, Chennai (W.P.Nos.28437 of 2019 and related cases, order dated September 29, 2020). Both counsels agreed that this precedent applied, mandating that the interest levied in this context be set aside.

Consequently, the court set aside the interest levied on remittances made by adjusting the electronic credit register, following the legal precedent established by the Maansarovar Motors case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner focuses on the interest levied on cash remittances. Their argument is centered around Section 42 of the relevant Act. This section stipulates that when there is a discrepancy between the details provided by the assessee and those provided in the returns of the selling or purchasing dealer, the Assessing Authority must issue a notice.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

1. Interest on Cash Remittances: The petitioner’s primary concern is the interest imposed on cash remittances. They believe that this interest has been levied unfairly or without proper basis.

2. Reliance on Section 42: To support their case, the counsel relies heavily on Section 42 of the Act. This section appears to be critical because it outlines the procedure to be followed when there is a mismatch in details.

3. Notice Requirement: Section 42 mandates that the Assessing Authority must issue a notice if there is a discrepancy between the particulars provided by the assessee and those recorded in the returns of the selling or purchasing dealer. This ensures that the assessee is informed and can address or correct the mismatch.

4. Mismatch of Particulars: The mismatch of particulars can occur due to various reasons, such as errors in reporting by either the assessee or the selling/purchasing dealer. This discrepancy can impact the assessment and subsequent actions, including the levying of interest.

5. Assessing Authority’s Role: The role of the Assessing Authority is to identify these mismatches and communicate them to the assessee through a formal notice. This procedural step is crucial for maintaining transparency and fairness in the assessment process.

6. Implications of Non-Compliance: If the Assessing Authority fails to issue the required notice, any subsequent actions, including the imposition of interest on cash remittances, may be challenged as procedurally flawed or invalid.

7. Legal Argument: The legal argument presented by the counsel is that the interest levied on the petitioner’s cash remittances is not justified because the procedural requirement of issuing a notice under Section 42 was not met. This forms the crux of their challenge against the interest levy.

In summary, the petitioner’s counsel argues that the imposition of interest on cash remittances is flawed due to non-compliance with Section 42 of the Act. This section requires the Assessing Authority to issue a notice in cases of mismatched details between the assessee and the selling/purchasing dealer, a step they allege was not followed in this instance.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: