Madhu Sudan Periwal Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
The Patna High Court dismissed the writ application filed by Madhu Sudan Periwal, proprietor of M/S Tirupati Distributors, challenging the demand order dated 24.02.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Act, 2017. The impugned order imposed a late fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the petitioner.
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of medicines and registered under GST with G.S.TIN No. 10AHCPP9269KIZI, contended that the determination of tax and penalty had come to a naught, while the late fee was imposed under Section 47 of the CGST Act. It was argued that the levy made under Section 73(9) was without jurisdiction because Section 73(1) applies where tax has not been paid or has been short paid, tax has been erroneously refunded, or input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised. According to the petitioner, Section 73(1) is confined to determination of tax and input tax credit and does not cover adjudication or recovery of late fee.
The petitioner further submitted that the relevant tax period was 2020-2021 and challenged the demand for late fee as being without jurisdiction.
