9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd a Notice bearing no. GEXCOM/AE/INV/ 2910/2024/471 dated 28.11.2024; both issued by the respondent no. 3. 3. The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm having its registered office at Rangpur Nagar, District - Sivasagar and the petitioner no. 2 is the managing partner of the petitioner no. 1 firm. The petitioner no. 1 firm ['the petitioner firm', for short] is engaged in the business of execution of contracts of house keeping services, etc. and it is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax [CGST] Act, 2017 on and from 01.07.2017. The petitioner firm was issued a GST Registration Certificate bearing Registration no. 18AAIFJ1040K1ZF on 26.09.2017. 4. As the petitioner firm is liable to pay tax under the CGST Act, 2017, the respondent no. 5 after scrutiny of the returns for the tax period : 2018 - 2019 submitted by the petitioner firm, issued a notice on 26.10.2023 in Form GST ASMT-10 finding certain discrepancies. In the notice, it was informed that on scrutiny of returns, it was found that the returns had been filed by the petitioner firm beyond the due dates and as a result, the petitioner firm was found liable to pay late fee under Section 47 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 50 [1] of the CGST Act. It was further informed that the compliance should be submitted by 01.12.2023 failing which show cause notice would be issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act. 6. The petitioner firm replied to the respondent no. 5 on 12.12.2023 in response to his notice dated 26.10.2023. Subsequently, another reply was submitted before the respondent no. 5 on 27.12.2023 by the petitioner firm. 7. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 had issued a notice to the petitioner firm on 19.01.2024 intimating the outstanding liabilities found against the petitioner firm during scrutiny for the Financial Year : 2018-2019. It was informed that according to the petitioner firm's calculation, the total delayed payment of interest for the financial year : 2018-2019 would come to Rs. 36,55,335/- as demanded. It was conveyed that the remaining amount of interest would be paid in installment and the petitioner firm was ready and willing to pay the amount towards late fee. The petitioner firm informed vide a letter dated 19.01.2024, in response to its letter dated 27.12.2023, that the petitioner firm's claim regarding its liability to the extent of Rs. 36,36,106/- was found correct. The petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3B returns. The petitioner firm has nowhere disputed the calculation of the amount demanded towards the delayed payment of taxes under Section 50 [1] of the CGST Act. It had only made a prayer through its representation dated 06.02.2024 to allow it to deposit the amount of Rs. 96,06,286/- in forty-eight equal monthly installments on the ground that if it was required to deposit such amount within a short period, its business would be severely affected. The petitioner firm was also asked to provide the details whether it had paid the Rs. 19,00,000/- or Rs. 28,00,000/-. The respondent authorities in its letter dated 22.10.2024 had provided the details like the date of deposit of the amount paid through DRC-03 to state that as per their records, only an amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- was paid. The said position was again reiterated in the letter dated 28.11.2024. The petitioner has not responded to any of those two letters. 11. A contention is advanced on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that denial to pay the demanded amount in forty-eight installment is unjust and arbitrary. Section 80 of the CGST Act, 2017 has provided that the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to deposit the demanded amount in twenty-four equal monthly installments and such a request would fall within the four corners of the provisions of Section 80 of the CGST Act. 14. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 - 6 has submitted that in the event such an application is filed by the petitioner firm, the same would be considered under the provisions of Section 80 of the CGST Act within a reasonable period of time. He has further submitted that if any ground regarding untenability relating to liability self-assessed is raised, the same would be duly examined in accordance with law. 15. In the above backdrop, Rule 158 of the CGST Rules, 2017 is of relevance and the same is quoted hereinbelow :- 158. Payment of tax and other amounts in instalments.- [1] On an application filed electronically by a taxable person, in FORM GST DRC-20, seeking extension of time for the payment of taxes or any amount due under the Act or for allowing payment of such taxes or amount in instalments in accordance with the provisions of Section 80, the Commissioner shall call for a report from the jurisdictional officer about the financial ability of the taxable person to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
