TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the specific direction issued by this Court. The impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, who passed the impugned order despite specific objection taken by the petitioner in his written submissions that 4th respondent lacks legal authority to consider the representations in the light of specific directions issued by this Court to the 3rd respondent. Petition allowed. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY For the Petitioner : Sri Srinivas Chaturvedula, For the Respondent No. 1 : Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Learned Deputy Solicitor General Learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Narayana Reddy appearing on behalf of Sri Uday Kumar Bhagwat for respondent No. 2. ORDER: (PER HON BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY) This writ petition has been fled assailing the speaking order No. 01/2022-23 GST, dated 24.11.2022 issued by the respondent no. 4 in DIN No. 20221156YN000000AOIC, demanding interest from the petitioner. 2. The brief facts leading to filing the present writ petition are as under: 3. Petitioner is a sole proprietor of M/s. RC Reddy IAS Study Circle and engaged in coaching civil services aspirants in the country for the past severa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade online payment of cash towards CGST and SGST liability. The petitioner submitted detailed representation dated 18.04.2022 to the 5th respondent. Since there was no response from the 5th respondent, petitioner submitted representation to the Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad Zone on 28.04.2022, however, there was neither response nor reply to the representations of the petitioner. However, 5th respondent sent another letter dated 13.06.2022 in DIN No. 20220656YN000000DD49 reiterating the demand for interest. The respondent no. 4 had thereafter issued garnishee order dated 21.06.2022 to the petitioner s banker calling upon them to make payment of Rs. 30,07,927/- from the account of the petitioner in terms of Section 79(1)(c) of CGST/SGST Act, 2017. 6. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached this Court vide W.P. No. 27336 of 2022 and said writ petition was disposed vide order dated 29.06.2022 with a direction to the 3rd respondent i.e., Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 18.04.2022 and 28.04.2022 duly giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Tax, by duly following principles of natural justice, considered all the facts and merits of the case, and had passed speaking order dated 24.11.2022 by holding that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30,07,927/- towards interest for the delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns. 10. Heard learned counsel Sri Srinivas Chaturvedula for petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar for respondent no.1, learned senior counsel Sri B. Narayana Reddy appearing on behalf of Sri Uday Kumar Bhagwat for respondent no. 2. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that 5th respondent has suo moto migrated the petitioner s account without any authority and is clear violation of Rule 24 of CGST Rules, 2017 by using their own mobile and e-mail id. That the petitioner had approached the respondents and also submitted representations to change the mobile number and e-mail id to enable the petitioner to file requisite monthly returns through GST portal. However, the respondents did not take steps for change of mobile number and e-mail id and thus, the petitioner could not file his monthly returns for want of mobile number and e-mail id within the time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3B is filed and the electronic cash/credit ledger is debited towards payment of GST. As per Section 49 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 87 of CGST Rules, 2017, such deposits does not amount to deposit in Government exchequer. 15. With regard to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 27336 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022 it was to the Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad to consider the representations of the petitioner. The learned standing counsel for respondents would submit that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is the proper officer to consider the representations. Thus, the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax had directed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Circular No. 3/32017-GST dated 05.07.2017 and finally submitted that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. Learned senior counsel for respondents 2 to 6 placed reliance on the following decisions in support of their contention that there is no illegality in passing the impugned order: i) M/s.RSB Transmissions India Ltd., vs. Union of India and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST, dated 05.07.2017 that Assistant Commissioner is the proper officer under CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the said officer is in accordance with the provisions of CGST Act, 2017. 19. We are afraid to accept the contention of learned senior counsel for the respondents for simple reason that the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition was specifically to the Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad, and not to proper officer. Thus, the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, who passed the impugned order despite specific objection taken by the petitioner in his written submissions that 4th respondent lacks legal authority to consider the representations in the light of specific directions issued by this Court to the 3rd respondent. 20. It is relevant to refer Section 2(24) of CGST Act, 2017, as per which, the Commissioner means, the Commissioner of Central Tax and includes the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax appointed under Section 3 and the Commissioner of integrated tax appointed under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. Therefore, Assistant Commissioner is not a Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
