The case in question revolves around a challenge to an order issued by the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, dated February 8, 2022. This order, issued under Section 80 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 158 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, pertains to a demand for interest covering the period from April 2019 to December 2019, raised by the CT&GST Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar. The demand for interest was due to the belated deposit of admitted tax.
The petitioner, dissatisfied with the order, has approached the court invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks several reliefs, including questioning the legality and arbitrariness of the order, rectification of the demand raised, permission to pay the admissible interest amount in installments, and any other appropriate orders as deemed fit.
According to the petitioner, returns for the period 2019-20 were filed in Form GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 on a self-assessment basis, as per the provisions of Section 39 and Section 59 of the OGST Act. However, during scrutiny, it was observed by the CT & GST Officer that the petitioner had filed the returns belatedly.
The petitioner contends that the delay in payment of the admitted tax is due to the non-disbursal of a substantial amount owed by IDCOL, a Government Agency. Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kananbala Roy Choudhury, asserts that the entire tax component has now been deposited.
The matter is being contested through virtual and physical modes, with the petitioner presenting arguments against the order and seeking relief from the court based on alleged procedural irregularities and the circumstances surrounding the delayed payment.
The matter at hand revolves around a challenge against an order issued on February 8, 2022, by the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, regarding a revision case under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contests a demand for interest covering the period from April 2019 to December 2019, imposed by the CT & GST Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, for the late deposit of admitted tax. The petitioner has approached the court seeking relief under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution with several prayers, including questioning the legality, arbitrariness, and violation of natural justice in the impugned order.
The petitioner’s argument rests on the assertion that returns for the period 2019-20 were filed in Form GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 on a self-assessment basis as required by Sections 39 and 59 of the OGST Act. However, it was noted during scrutiny that the returns were filed belatedly. The petitioner attributes the non-payment of admitted tax to the non-disbursal of funds owed by IDCOL, a government agency. The entire tax amount has now been deposited, albeit belatedly. The petitioner seeks permission to pay the demanded interest in 24 installments, citing inability to pay the substantial interest demand upfront.
In response, the CT&GST Organization argues that statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to and contends that alternative methods of performance are implicitly forbidden. The CT&GST Officer defends the issuance of Form GST DRC-07, stating that the rejection of the petitioner’s request for installment payments was based on adherence to statutory provisions.
The petitioner asserts that the Commissioner of CT&GST, vested with powers under Section 80 of the OGST Act, should have exercised discretion favorably and allowed installment payments, arguing that the rejection was arbitrary and a misinterpretation of the statute.
In essence, the case hinges on the petitioner’s plea for leniency in paying the demanded interest in installments due to financial constraints arising from delayed tax payments, juxtaposed against the CT&GST Organization’s insistence on strict adherence to statutory procedures and forms. The court will need to weigh these arguments to arrive at a just decision.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law:
