Page 106 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

352 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
quantum of interest claimed by the Revenue by contending that the interest
liability was worked out on the entire tax liability instead of restricting the
liability to the extent of tax unpaid. It is further seen that the writ petition-
ers have placed some worksheets, wherein they have claimed some ITC
credit for every month as well. Their grievance before the Writ Court was
that the impugned bank attachment ought not to have been resorted to
without determining the actual quantum of liability.
32. Therefore, it is evident that the dispute between the parties to the liti-
gation is not with regard to the very liability to pay interest itself but only
on the quantum of such liability. In order to decide and determine such
quantum, the objections raised by each petitioners shall have to be, certain-
ly, considered. Undoubtedly unilateral quantification of interest liability
cannot be justified especially when the assessee has something to say on
such quantum. The Writ Court, thus, in the above line, has disposed the
writ petitions, that too, on a condition that the petitioner in each case
should pay the admitted liability of interest.
33. 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 consider-
ing 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 appeal is not
warranted, since the Writ Court has not determined the interest liability of
each petitioners 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 re-
gard to the maintainability of the writ appeals is answered accordingly. ”
22. The next issue for adjudication in the instant writ application is as
to whether garnishee proceedings under Section 79 of the CGST Act can be initi-
ated for recovery of interest without adjudicating the liability of interest, when
the same is admittedly disputed by the assessee. Section 79 of the CGST Act em-
powers the authorities to initiate garnishee proceedings for recovery of tax where
“any amount payable by a person to the Government under any of the provi-
sions of the Act and Rules made thereunder is not paid”. Since in the preceding
paragraphs of our Judgment, we have already held that though the liability of
interest is automatic, but the same is required to be adjudicated in the event an
assessee disputes the computation or very leviability of interest, by initiation of
adjudication proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, in our opinion,
till such adjudication is completed by the Proper Officer, the amount of interest
cannot be termed as an amount payable under the Act or the Rules. Thus, with-
out initiation of any adjudication proceedings, no recovery proceeding under
Section 79 of the Act can be initiated for recovery of the interest amount.
23. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8-3-2019 issued by Re-
spondent No. 3 (Superintendent, Daltonganj Range) (as contained in Annexure-
7) is hereby quashed/set aside and, further, garnishee notice contained in the
Order dated 22-5-2019 (Annexure-10 of the Supplementary Affidavit) issued un-
der Section 79 of the CGST Act to the Banker of the petitioner for recovery of in-
terest amount of Rs. 19,59,721/- is also, hereby, quashed/set aside.
24. It shall be open for the respondent Authorities to initiate appropri-
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  106