Sonu Ansari VS Union Of India

The petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking directions from the respondents to refund the late fee imposed on them during the filing of returns under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner contends that the imposition of late fees is unjust and seeks relief through this legal avenue. They argue that the late fee collected from them is not in line with the provisions of the Act or its underlying principles of fairness and equity. The petitioner asserts that they have been subjected to undue financial burden due to these fees, which they believe were wrongfully imposed. They request the court to intervene and order the refund of the late fees, thereby rectifying what they perceive as an unjust situation. This writ petition thus serves as a legal recourse for the petitioner to seek redressal and uphold their rights under the Act.

The petitioner has lodged a writ petition requesting the authorities to instruct them to reimburse the late fee levied on them while filing returns under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, specifically in Form GSTR-3B. Their aim is to employ this refunded late fee amount to offset their tax liabilities. Furthermore, the petitioner has expressed apprehensions regarding the legality of Notification No.76/2018 dated 31.12.18, which seemingly addresses the imposition of late fees. This petition underscores a disagreement concerning the collection and utilization of late fees within the GST framework, underscoring the petitioner’s aspiration for a reimbursement and challenging the legitimacy of the notification enforcing such fees. The resolution of this petition holds the potential to shape the protocols and guidelines surrounding late fee collections and reimbursements under the GST Act.

The petitioner’s writ petition raises concerns about the late fee charged for failure to submit returns in Form GSTR-3B under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. They seek reimbursement of this late fee to be used towards settling their tax liabilities. Additionally, they question the legality of Notification No.76/2018 dated 31.12.18, which presumably relates to the imposition of late fees. This petition highlights a dispute over the collection and utilization of late fees in the GST system, with the petitioner aiming for reimbursement and challenging the validity of the notification enforcing such fees. The resolution of this petition has the potential to influence the procedures and regulations governing late fee collections and reimbursements under the GST Act.

The petitioner’s concern seems to revolve around the exercise of power granted by Section 128 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This section pertains to the waiver of late fees for failure to furnish returns in Form GSTR-3B from July 2017 onwards by the due date as specified in Section 47 of the Act. The notification in question appears to waive the late fee amount exceeding twenty-five rupees for each day of non-compliance, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner may be contesting the applicability or fairness of these conditions, possibly arguing for a broader waiver of late fees or more lenient conditions. This brings into focus the intricacies of late fee waivers and the interpretation of relevant provisions under the GST Act.

The petitioner’s case seems to involve a procedural issue regarding the refund of late fees already paid. The court’s stance appears to be that if the petitioner is entitled to a refund, they should have first pursued the appropriate channels by making an application for refund to the concerned authority as per the law. However, instead of following this procedure, the petitioner directly approached the court seeking directions for the refund without having approached the respondents first. The court indicates that such a petition cannot be entertained without the petitioner first exhausting the remedies available through the proper channels. This highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

Indisputably, the impugned notification is issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 120 of the Act, which already stands published in the official gazette. The notification issued being a statutory notification, it holds legal significance and is presumably subject to certain procedural and substantive requirements. In light of this, the court’s stance regarding the petitioner’s approach appears to emphasize the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. This suggests that the petitioner should have first pursued avenues for refund through appropriate channels, such as making an application to the concerned authority, before resorting to legal action. The court’s position underscores the significance of following established procedures and exhausting administrative remedies before seeking relief from the judiciary.

The court maintains that the validity of the impugned notification, issued by the Central Government under Section 120 of the Act, cannot be examined by the Single Bench. This notification, being a statutory one, holds legal weight and presumably complies with certain procedural and substantive requirements. The court’s position underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures and exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, with the suggestion that if the petitioner wishes to challenge the notification, they may do so before the Division Bench.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: