Case Law Details
Balu Jayaraman Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
In the case of Balu Jayaraman vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) at the Madras High Court, a significant ruling was delivered regarding the imposition of a penalty following the discharge of full GST and interest liabilities. The judgment, dated 12.09.2023, faced challenge primarily on the grounds of the imposed 100% penalty.
The petitioner, Balu Jayaraman, was embroiled in proceedings related to alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. These proceedings culminated in the impugned order dated 12.09.2023, which imposed a substantial penalty.
Balu Jayaraman’s counsel argued that although a statutory appeal was not filed earlier, the petitioner chose to discharge the tax and interest liabilities first. Receipts of payments made were presented, demonstrating the complete discharge of tax and interest liabilities as per the impugned order. Consequently, the petitioner sought an opportunity to contest the penalty liability through a statutory appeal.
The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, representing the respondent, acknowledged receipt of the petition but raised concerns over the petition’s filing after the expiration of the limitation period.
Upon examination of the receipts provided, it was evident that the petitioner had made payments between February 14, 2024, and March 18, 2024. The writ petition itself was filed in late March 2024, subsequent to the discharge of the entire tax and interest liabilities.
Considering that the petitioner had fully discharged the tax and interest liabilities and had refrained from filing an appeal earlier with the intent to discharge the liability to that extent, the court deemed it just and appropriate to allow the petitioner to file a statutory appeal solely regarding the penalty imposed under the impugned order dated 12.09.2023.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court, through its judgment in the case of Balu Jayaraman vs Assistant Commissioner (ST), has permitted the filing of a statutory appeal challenging the penalty imposition post the discharge of full GST and interest liabilities. This ruling provides an avenue for the petitioner to contest the penalty without being hindered by the question of limitation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 12.09.2023 is assailed primarily with regard to the imposition of 100% penalty.
2. In relation to alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and such proceedings culminated in impugned order dated 12.09.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a statutory appeal was not filed earlier because the petitioner decided to discharge the tax and interest liability. By referring to receipts issued in respect of payments made by the petitioner, he points out that the entire tax and interest liability, as per the impugned order, was discharged. He seeks an opportunity to contest the liability towards penalty by way of statutory appeal.
4. Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the writ petition has been filed after the period of limitation expired.
5. On examining the receipts, it appears that the petitioner made payments between 14.02.2024 and 18.03.2024. This writ petition was filed in late March 2024 after discharging the entire tax and interest liability.
6. By taking into account the fact that the entire tax and interest liability was discharged and that an appeal was not filed earlier since the petitioner intended to discharge liability to that extent, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be permitted to file a statutory appeal.
7. For reasons set out above, W.P.No.9418 of 2024 is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal only with regard to the penalty imposed under impugned order dated 12.09.2023 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such statutory appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.10426 and 10427 of 2024 are closed.
Author Bio
