Case Law Details
Case Name : Raj Sanjaybhai Tanna Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Gujarat High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Raj Sanjaybhai Tanna Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL challenging constitutional validity of section 47 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which pertains to late fee for filing returns beyond the prescribed time limit. The PIL has been dismissed as not maintainable because it was not preferred by effected parties but by tax practitioners. In such cases Writ Petition by affected persons or their Association to challenge validity is proper course of Action
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Why should late fee is charged from GST dealers .Fee is always payable for any service if received by any one..In Gst Government is taking services of GST Dealers in collecting Revenue as GST hence Govt Should Pay fee to the dealers..In My view Late fee should not be charged by The Government.
All the problems are to be solved through the proper channels under the GST Act. Then only to move the legal ways. Every Accountant knows very well. The said petitioners are not studied well the GST Act and Court proceedings.
Late Fee is not the motivation of GST, but it is giving importance to regular filing of returns. Practices are not completed upon both sides (i.e.,) Departments and business persons.
IMPROMPTU
Ground for dismissal : “The PIL has been dismissed as not maintainable because it was not preferred by effected parties but by tax practitioners. In such cases Writ Petition by affected persons or their Association to challenge validity is proper course of Action instead of PIL.”
MORE – as shared on FB
To say the least, – this is not in consonance / resonance or compatible with the basic, crucial test , as laid down and settled by case law, and holding the field for long now. For instance, consider the famous Judgment of the SC, co-authored by / in the concurrent opinion of, V R krishna Iyer J, in, – Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar … vs Union Of India … -https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1171702/
To QUOTE (as selected)(:
“Law as I conceive it, is a social auditor and this audit function can be put into action only when some one with real public interest ignites the jurisdiction. We cannot be scared by the fear that all and sundry will be litigation-happy and waste their time and money and the time of the court through false and frivolous cases. In a society where freedoms suffer from atrophy and activism is essential for participative public justice, some risks have to be taken and more opportunities opened for the public-minded citizen to rely on the legal process and not be repelled from it by narrow pedantry now surrounding locus standi. “