Page 98 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

344 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
[Judgment per : Deepak Roshan, J.]. - The issues involved in the present
writ application are of seminal importance, namely -
(i) Whether interest liability under Section 50 of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’) can be determined
without initiating any adjudication process either u/s. 73 or 74 of
the CGST Act in the event of an assessee raising dispute towards li-
ability of interest?
(ii) Whether recovery proceedings u/s. 79 of the CGST Act can be initi-
ated for recovery of interest u/s. 50 of the said Act without initia-
tion and completion of the adjudication proceedings under the Act?
2. The facts of the present writ application lie in a very narrow com-
pass. The petitioner, being a partnership firm, was registered under the provi-
sions of the CGST Act. Under Section 39 of the CGST Act, provisions have been
incorporated for furnishing of monthly return by a registered person on or before
20th day of the month succeeding such calendar month in which returns were to
be filed. Said returns are known as ‘GSTR-3 Return’. However, it is an admitted
fact that due to the Nationwide problem in GSTN Portal, said GSTR-3 Return,
which is an auto populated return on the basis of details of inward and outward
supply, is not being generated, due to which, by way of stop-gap arrangement,
provisions have been incorporated for filing GSTR-3B Return in terms of Rule
61(5) read with Rule 61(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for
short ‘CGST Rules’).
3. Further, under Section 39(7) of the CGST Act, it is provided, inter alia,
that a registered person, who is required to furnish his return under sub-section
(1) of Section 39, would be liable to pay to the Government the tax due as per
such return not later than the last date on which the dealer is required to furnish
such return. A conjoint reading of Section 39(1) read with Section 39(7) of the
CGST Act would reveal that a dealer was liable to pay tax within 20th day of the
succeeding month for which said dealer was liable to file GSTR-3 Return. How-
ever, since the very onset of implementation of GST regime, filing of monthly
return u/s 39, being GSTR-3, was suspended and continues to be suspended till
today, and, return in GSTR-3B is required to be filed by registered person.
4. From time to time, due date for filing such return in GSTR-3B has
been extended by respondent-Authorities.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that in GSTN Portal, due date for filing
of GSTR-3B Return for the month of February, 2018 and March, 2018 was reflect-
ing as 31st March, 2019 and the petitioner reasonably believed that due date of
filing of GSTR-3B Return for the months of February and March, 2018 has been
extended up to 31st March, 2019 and in the said background, the petitioner filed
its monthly return for the month of February, 2018 and March, 2018 within the
due date as reflected in GSTN Portal, as would be evident from Annexure-4 of
the writ application. The petitioner was served with a letter dated 8th March,
2019 issued by Superintendent of Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise
(Respondent No. 3) directing the petitioner to make payment of interest amount-
ing to Rs. 19,59,721/- on the ground of delay in filing of GSTR-3B Return for the
months of February and March, 2018. The said letter contained in Annexure-7 is
impugned in the present writ application. The respondent-Authorities further
exercised powers under Section 79 of the CGST Act by initiating garnishee pro-
ceedings for recovery of aforesaid amount of interest by issuing notice to the pe-

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  98