NARSINGH ISPAT LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Initially, W.P (T) No. 1261/2020 was preferred by the petitioner. Vide order dtd. 4/1/2021, petitioner was allowed liberty to assail the respective demands for the Financial Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 in separate writ petitions as the consequential relief relating to challenge of the demand notices relating to Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 had been combined in W.P(T) No. 1261/2020. Subject matter in W.P (T) No. 177//2021 relates to the tax period for Financial Year 2018-19 and the subject matter in W.P (T) No. 161/2021 is in respect of tax period for the Financial Year 2019-20, while W.P (T) No. 1261/2020 is now confined to the Financial Year 2017-18.

(3.) In all the three writ petitions, primarily challenge was to the Circular bearing F. No. CBEC-20/16/07/2020-GST dtd. 10/2/2020 (Annexure-1) issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ('CBIC in short) which prescribes that interest payable on delayed payment of taxes can be recovered under the provisions of Sec. 79 read with Sec. 75(12) of CGST Act. It was pointed out that the petitioner has been asked to pay the amount of interest applicable over the taxes in full, failing which he would face proceeding under sec. 73(1) of CGST Act. However, at the time of final hearing of this case, learned counsel for the petitioner has abandoned such prayer as it has become redundant in view of the provisions of Sec. 50(1) of CGST Act, 2017 under which a proviso has been inserted by Gazette Notification dtd. 2/11/2021 of Government of Jharkhand clarifying that interest is to be paid on the net tax liability i.e. amount of tax paid by debiting Electronic Cash Ledger. The second prayer in all the writ petitions is also common as it relates to quashing of Gamishee notice issued in Form GST DRC-13 for three different financial years aforesaid of the same date 26/2/2020 in the respective writ petition. However, during course of final hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that this issue has also become infructuous in view of the statement made by the Respondents in their counter affidavit that after receiving mail from M/s Rungta Mines Limited, Respondent authorities have withdrawn GST DRC-13 issued by them. The challenge in the respective writ petitions are now confined to the prayer (c) and (d) of Para-1 inter-alia for quashing of the Summary of the Order dtd. 26/2/2020 issued in Form GST DRC-07 for the Financial Years July 2017 to March 2018 / 2018-19 and from April 2019 to December 2019 in the respective writ petitions. Petitioner has sought quashing of the demand notices issued in Form GST DRC-01 dtd. 28/1/2020 relating to the different tax periods in the respective writ petitions.