Pazhayidom Food Ventures (P) Ltd VS Superintendent Commercial Taxes

The petitioner, a private limited company operating as a service provider under the Goods and Service Tax Act, finds themselves embroiled in a legal battle outlined in a Writ Petition. Their case hinges on the intention to settle arrears of tax due for the assessment year 2018-2019, specifically spanning from November 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner asserts their willingness to pay these dues without contest, yet encounters resistance from the respondents who refuse to permit installment payments.

In a bid to navigate this financial hurdle, exacerbated by the ongoing Covid pandemic, the petitioner argues their inability to generate the requisite funds for a lump-sum payment of the admitted tax for the stated period. Consequently, they petition the court for a directive allowing them to file returns sans the complete payment of the admitted tax. However, they pledge to ensure that the full sum, inclusive of interest and applicable late fees, will be settled by or before March 31, 2021.

This legal entanglement underscores the broader challenges faced by businesses amid the pandemic, grappling with financial strains and seeking recourse within the legal framework to manage their tax obligations. As the case unfolds, it raises poignant questions about the balance between fiscal responsibility and the economic realities precipitated by unprecedented global crises.

In response to the petitioner’s plea for installment payments, the learned Standing counsel representing the respondents emphasizes that the provisions within the Goods and Service Tax Act do not explicitly allow for such payment arrangements. They argue that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted due to the absence of provisions within the statute permitting installment payments of the admitted tax amount shown in the return.

This stance underscores the legal rigidity imposed by statutory frameworks, highlighting the limitations businesses face when seeking alternative methods to fulfill their tax obligations. The respondents’ position accentuates the importance of adhering to the letter of the law, even in the face of extenuating circumstances such as the ongoing Covid pandemic.

As the legal debate unfolds, it underscores the tension between statutory provisions and the practical challenges encountered by businesses, prompting deeper reflection on the need for flexibility within regulatory frameworks to accommodate unforeseen economic exigencies.

Having carefully considered the arguments presented by both the counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondents, and taking into account the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the court observes that the petitioner, as an assessee under the GST Act, does not contest their liability to tax or its quantum for the relevant period. Rather, the petitioner seeks an installment facility to settle the admitted tax amount, along with accrued interest, owing to the financial constraints exacerbated by the Covid pandemic, which has brought their business operations to a halt.

This recognition by the court underscores a nuanced understanding of the petitioner’s predicament, acknowledging the unprecedented challenges posed by the pandemic on businesses across various sectors. It reflects a judicial empathy towards the economic hardships faced by entities striving to fulfill their tax obligations amidst adverse circumstances beyond their control.

In juxtaposition to the strict interpretation of statutory provisions advocated by the respondents’ counsel, the court’s stance hints at a potential inclination towards a more pragmatic approach, one that seeks to balance legal mandates with the exigencies of real-world economic upheavals.

As the court deliberates on its decision, it navigates the delicate balance between upholding legal frameworks and accommodating the genuine struggles of businesses grappling with the aftermath of the pandemic. This judicial process underscores the evolving nature of legal interpretation in response to dynamic socio-economic challenges, emphasizing the need for adaptability within the realm of legal adjudication.

Additionally, the court takes note of the petitioner’s actions during the course of this Writ Petition. It acknowledges that the petitioner has demonstrated their good faith by making a payment of Rs. 4 lakhs towards their tax liability for the period 2018-2019. Importantly, the court observes that there is currently no outstanding demand against the petitioner for the unpaid tax amount.

In light of these factors, particularly the petitioner’s non-dispute of their liability and their desire to resolve the matter amicably, the court deems it appropriate to issue a directive to the respondents. The directive entails accepting the belated return filed by the petitioner for the period spanning November 2018 to March 2019, without insistence on the immediate payment of the admitted tax declared therein.

Furthermore, the court instructs the respondents to adjust the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs already paid by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition towards the admitted tax. This decision reflects the court’s recognition of the petitioner’s efforts to address their tax liability, coupled with a pragmatic approach aimed at facilitating a resolution that balances legal obligations with the economic realities faced by the petitioner.

This judicial disposition embodies a nuanced understanding of the complexities inherent in tax matters, particularly in the context of unforeseen challenges such as the Covid pandemic. It underscores the court’s role in adjudicating disputes with sensitivity to the broader socio-economic context, striving to achieve equitable outcomes while upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

In light of the petitioner’s demonstrated good faith through the payment of Rs. 4 lakhs towards their tax liability and the absence of any outstanding demand, the court has deemed it appropriate to issue a directive. This directive entails accepting the belated return filed by the petitioner without immediate insistence on the payment of the admitted tax. Additionally, the court instructs the respondents to adjust the Rs. 4 lakhs already paid by the petitioner towards their tax liability.

Moreover, the court extends further relief by permitting the petitioner to discharge the remaining tax liability, inclusive of any interest and late fees, in equal successive monthly installments. These installments are to commence from August 25, 2020, and conclude on March 25, 2021. However, the court emphasizes that any default in these installment payments will nullify the benefits granted by the judgment. In such an event, the respondent will be authorized to proceed with recovery proceedings to realize the unpaid tax, interest, and other amounts owed by the petitioner.

This comprehensive judgment reflects the court’s balanced approach, acknowledging the petitioner’s efforts to address their tax liabilities while also ensuring compliance with legal obligations. It underscores the court’s commitment to fairness and equity in resolving disputes, particularly in challenging circumstances such as those posed by the Covid pandemic.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: