Interest Under Section 50 of the CGST Act is Automatic: Madras HC

Case covered:

The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise

Versus

M/s.Daejung Moparts Pvt Ltd.

Prayer:

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.15624 of 2019 dated 13.06.2019.

Common Order:

These writ appeals are listed before me by way of reference, in pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, under the following facts and circumstances.

Facts of the case:

The respondent in W.A.No.2127 of 2019, as the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15978 of 2019, challenged the notice dated 21.05.2019 issued in Form GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act to M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Maraimalai Nagar, calling upon the said Bank to pay a sum of Rs.41,74,617/- to the Government under CGST and SGST heads equally, from the account maintained by the writ petitioner. In effect, it is a bank attachment proceedings.

The first respondent in W.A.No.2151 of 2019, as the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.15624 of 2019, challenging a similar notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the said Act to M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Sriperumbudur, calling upon the said bank to pay a sum of Rs.10091755/- to the Government under CGST and SGST Act heads dividing equally, from the account maintained by the petitioner herein. Here again, in effect, the impugned proceedings are bank attachment.

Download the copy:

Observations of the court:

A careful perusal of the direction issued by the Writ Court does not indicate anywhere as to how the Revenue is prejudiced by the said order, especially when the Revenue is given liberty to pass an order in a manner known to law and communicate the same to the petitioners, after considering their objections. Thus, I find that the Writ Appeals preferred against the said orders of the Writ Court, as observed by Dr.Vineet Kothari, J., are wholly unnecessary. Therefore, I am in agreement with the view expressed by Dr.Vineet Kothari, J., as I find that entertaining the writ appeals is not warranted, since the Writ Court has not determined the interest liability of each petitioner against the interest of the Revenue in any manner and on the other hand, it only remitted the matter back to the concerned Officer to determine the quantum of such liability. Thus, the second question with regard to the maintainability of the writ appeals is answered accordingly.

Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. The reference is answered in the above terms.