Recovery of Interest Without Adjudication Under GST

INTRODUCTION

Section 78 and section 79 of the CGST Act are the parent provisions which govern recovery of tax under GST law.

Section 78 talks about the point of time at which, a tax determined to be payable, becomes due for payment to the exchequer.

Section 79 lays down detailed procedure to be followed for recovery of tax.

Section 75(12), which overrides both section 73 and 74, talks about recovery of two component of tax namely i) ‘unpaid self-assessed tax’ and ii) interest payable on such ‘unpaid self-assessed tax’.

Para 5 of the Flyer issued by CBIC says that recovery proceedings are final steps towards the realization of any tax or amount, which has been confirmed as payable after following the due process of adjudication by the proper officer.

An attempt has been made in this article to analyze the legal validity of recovery of interest on unpaid self-assessed tax without adjudication by the department.

VEXED ISSUE SURRONDING RECOVERY OF INTEREST

A) Whether ‘interest’ as contemplated in section 75(12) is by itself fall within the expression ‘self-assessed’?

B) Whether interest payable on ‘unpaid self-assessed tax’ can be recovered u/s 79:

i) Straightaway by issuing letter/ email or any other similar communications

ii) By issuing Form DRC-07 without following adjudication process

LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST – WHETHER AUTOMATIC?

Section 75(12) of CGST Act reads as under – Notwithstanding anything contained in section 73 or section 74, where any amount of self-assessed tax in accordance with a return furnished under section 39 remains unpaid, either wholly or partly, or any amount of interest payable on such tax remains unpaid, the same shall be recovered under the provisions of section 79.

From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it appears that department can directly proceed to recover interest on admitted self -assessed tax without going through the process of adjudication.

The instant question that comes in mind is whether interest on belated filing of return arises automatically?

Honble Telengana & AP HC in the case of Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd V CCT (2019) 4 TMI 1319 has held that interest u/s 50(1) arises automatically. This case has been put to challenge before the hon’ble Supreme Court.

Honble Madras HC in the case of AC CGT Vrs Daejung Moparts P Ltd WA 2127 of 2019 in Para 29 of the order has held as below:

i) Liability fastened on the assessee to pay Interest is an automatic liability.

ii) The term Automatic does not mean or to be construed as excluding ‘the arithmetic exercise’

iii) In other words though liability is automatic, quantification of such liability shall have to be made by doing arithmetical exercise

IS SECTION 50(1) AN INDEPENDENT CODE BY ITSELF?

Section 50(2) of the CGST Act reads as under:

The interest under sub-section (1) shall be calculated, in such manner as may be prescribed, from the day succeeding the day on which such tax was due to be paid.

From the forgoing provisions, it is clear that Section 50(1) is not an independent code by itself, rather it is dependent upon section 50(2). As per sub-section 2, interest under subsection 1 shall be calculated in the manner prescribed. The word “prescribed” has been defined in section 2(87) of the CGST Act, 2017 to mean – prescribed by rules made under the Act on the recommendation of the Council. Till date no such rules have been formulated to prescribe the manner for calculating interest u/s 50(1).

Honble Gauhati High Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Harlalka Vs State of Assam & Ors, (1995) 2 GLR 95 while deciding the question on the manner held as under:

“Therefore, I am of the opinion that as per the “Rules”, no rate and manner have been prescribed to deduct tax at source. In the absence of any prescribed rate and manner, the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue notice dated 5.8.93 directing the 4th respondent to deduct taxes at source and the respondent no.5 has also no authority and jurisdiction to deduct the tax at source in the manner as it is proposed. Therefore, the letter dated 5.8.93 issued by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside as ultra vires.

Subsequently, the Government of Assam amended the law prescribing the rate but no manner was prescribed. The matter again came up before the Gauhati High Court in Gauhati Municipal Corporation Contractor’s Association Vs Gauhati Municipal Corporation, (1996) 2 GLR 172 and the High Court held as under:

 “It is a well settled law that where a power is given to do certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. In section 27(b) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act the legislature has fairly indicated that tax can be deducted at source not only on the basis of the prescribed rate but also in the manner. While making the said provision, definitely, the legislature had in its mind certain manners. It is also an established principle of law that legislature do not use any expression which is unnecessary and redundant. Taking the plain meaning from Section 27(b) of the Act, it is abundantly clear that some manner, regarding deduction of tax has to be prescribed. As this has not been done, in my opinion, no tax can be deducted at source in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside and quash the action of respondents deducting the sales tax at source from the bills payable to the members of the petitioner-association.

Honorable Supreme Court in Mathuram Agrawal has identified three essential components of taxation:

i) The subject of the tax;

ii) The person who is liable to pay the tax; and

iii) The rate at which the tax is to be paid.

This test has been further elaborated by a two-judge Bench of Supreme Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran V CST, 1985 Supp SCC or AIR 1985 SC 1041 by further requiring the designation of the measure or the value to which the rate of the tax will be applied. Thus, the four canons of taxation are as follows:

(i) The taxable event;

(ii) The person on whom the levy is imposed;

(iii) The rate at which the levy is imposed; and

(iv) The measure or the value to which the rate will be applied.

Section 5(1) of the IGST Act specifically identifies the four canons of taxation:

(i) The inter-State supply of goods and services as the taxable event;

(ii) The “taxable person” as the person on whom the levy is imposed;

(iii) The taxable rate as such a rate notified by the Union Government on the recommendation of the GST Council, capped at forty per cent; and

(iv) The taxable value as the value determined under Section 15 of the CGST Act.

Section 5(3) and Section 5(4) of the IGST Act are inextricably linked with Section 5(1) of the IGST Act which is the charging provision. They must be construed together in determining the vires of the taxation.

In CIT v. B C Srinivas Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, a three-judge Bench of Supreme Court has held that the machinery provisions of an Act and the charging sections are inextricably linked. The Court observed:

“A transaction to which those provisions cannot be applied must be regarded as never intended by Section 45 to be the subject of the charge. This inference flows from the general arrangement of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, where under each head of income the charging provision is accompanied by a set of provisions for computing the income subject to that charge. The character of the computation provisions in each case bears a relationship to the nature of charge. Thus the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section.

Any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislative scheme defining any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity.

It is a trite law that for taxability of any transaction there are two provisions, one is charging provisions which provides the conditions for taxability of any event and other is machinery provision which takes care of computation of tax. It is now a settled legal position that in the absence of machinery provision, charging provisions cannot be applied on isolation.

The above passage was cited with approval and this position of law has again been reiterated by honorable Supreme Court vide Para 88 (Page 108) in the case of UOI Vrs Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd, Civil Appln No.1390 of 2022 dated 19.05.2022.

Thus it can be safely concluded that in absence of machinery provisions, as referred to in section 50(2), section 50(1), being the charging provision cannot survive by its own.

INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD ‘PAYABLE’

Section 75(12), section 78 and section 79 have used the word ‘payable’. What is the meaning of the word ‘payable’?

Honourable High Court of Madras in Para 7 in it’s judgment in the case of V N Mehta & Co Vrs Asst Commissioner, Preventive Unit, Chennai reported in 2020 (34) GSTL 148 has held:

Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017 contemplates that any amount payable by a person to the Government under any of the provisions of the said Act or the Rules made there under is not paid, the proper officer shall proceed to recover the amount by one or more of the modes referred to therein. Therefore, it is evident that the term “amount payable by a person” is to mean that such liability arises only after determination of such amount in a manner known to law.

INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD ‘FOR’

Rule 142 (6) has used the word notice ‘for’ recovery. Obviously it does not mean to say notice ‘of’ recovery.

The expression ‘for’ in isolation is of wide amplitude, the dictionary.com defines it as “with the object or purpose of”. Anything or any act with the object or purpose of something implies ‘something is for that thing/ act’.

Traditional meaning aside, the judicial approach in defining the word ‘for’ is a bit more complex, though. The meaning may be understood from some of the key judicial pronouncements; Context of Parent Section: The earliest tracing goes back to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in State of UP vs Ramkrishan Burman. The respondent disputed payment of Court Fees on obtaining decree-declaration of title to money or other property, to the exclusion of “suits for a decree for money or other property” under Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court Fees Act[4]. The Court ruled that second time use of expression ‘for’ and is narrow and limited to suit for recovery of money or other property [‘recovery’ is the pursued act in other clauses of Section 7] and not all acts concerning money (in this case suit for obtaining title of money). The test is what acts are covered when the expression “for” is used be it (1) limit acts or (2) all acts, depends upon the context of parent Section. Context of general scheme of things: The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Anjali Roy vs State of West Bengal interpreted the scope of ‘for’ in Article 15 (3) of the Indian Constitution. Article 15 (3) entailing for sex wise discrimination read as follows “nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children”. The Court averting to Mahadeb Jiew vs BB Sen, held that although grammatically and etymologically ‘for’ may mean ‘concerning’ i.e. discriminatory provision both favorable and unfavorable discrimination against women, however theoretically it is impossible that any unfavorable discrimination be resorted under Article 15 (3) ibid, hence ‘for women’ therein can only be interpreted as “in favour of” women. The Court again emphasized the context in which words ‘for’ should be seen.

Noscitur a sociis: Another legal doctrine that could be utilized is ‘noscitur a sociis’ that the ambiguous words should be read along with the associated words.

Theory of direct or immediate use: The goods or services received for construction, may also be examined as to how stretched the construction is process is. The direct or immediate use in construction or the remote use in construction determines the coverage of in-eligibility. In a fairly relevant judgment vis-à-vis Central Excise exemption on captively manufactured goods of CCEx vs Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed with the ruling of CEGAT, that in interpreting the exclusion of ‘use for producing or processing’ of any goods “indicates direct or immediate use in actual production or processing of goods”. In the earlier order, the CEGAT had very emphatically distinguished the rationale of “for” used in the context of manufacturing process. The CEGAT held that measuring equipment, handling equipment ipso facto doesn’t have the capacity to bring about processing or production or change in the substance, and such assets do not fall within the coverage of “for”. There direct and immediate use theory proceeds on the premise that the strength of the object proceeding after ‘for’, without the use of measuring equipment processing can be undertaken, and similarly without the surveyor’s services, the construction activity can surely be started. The measuring equipment and surveyor’s services in essence provides quality to the respective objects. Therefore an objective test that one can form is whether impugned goods or services is sine qua non for construction or is only for the qualitative purpose. If goods or services are sine qua non, they should be covered within ‘for’, while if they are only for the purpose of quality, then they should not be covered within the canopy of ‘for’

DEEMING FICTION

Rule 142(6) uses the expression ‘shall be treated’ after the expression ‘The order referred to in sub-rule (5)’. It creates a legal fiction for the treatment of an order as a notice. It is a settled law that deeming provision cannot go beyond the purpose for which it is created or beyond the language of the section by which it is created. By employing the word ‘treated’, the intent is quite clear and unambiguous that by its origin the subject matter is not a notice, in fact it is an order. By virtue of a legal fiction, the original character of the order become a notice for a specific purpose only i.e. recovery.

Moreover, an order shall be treated as a notice only after the making of an order. There are established procedure enshrined in the Rules itself for making of an order commencing from Rule 142(1) and ended with Rule 142(5) which must be followed. Without following following such procedure one cannot directly resorted to issuing an order.

FORM DRC-07 A ‘SUMMARY OF ORDER’ OR A ‘NOTICE’?

Rule 142(6) uses the expression: The order referred to in sub-rule (5) shall be treated as the notice for recovery.

It gives an instant impression that it is a NOTICE.

But the Rules uses the expression notice for recovery. That means, for the purpose of recovery action, DRC-07 is a notice; by origin it’s a ‘summary of order’. Let’s assume some hypothetical situation. Proper Officer issues DRC-07 for demanding Tax without following adjudication process. In that situation, the PO would have proceed to recover such tax, it would have led to an anarchy/ absurd situation.

There are various provisions in CGST Rules which talks about issuance or service of notice for a particular cause of action. Let’s find out some provisions in CGST Rules which has employed the word notice. Rule 6(4) – Issue a notice, Rule 9(2) – Issue a notice, Rule 19(2) – Serve a notice, Rule 22(1) – Issue a notice, Rule 23(3) – Issue a notice, Rule 24(3) – Serving a notice, Rule 68– Issue a notice, Rule 83(4) – Giving a notice, Rule 92(3) – Issue a notice, Rule 98(2) – Issue a notice, Rule 98(4) – Issue a notice, Rule 99(1) – Issue a notice, Rule 142(1A) – Service of notice, Rule 142(6) – Treated as the notice.

Employment of the expression ‘shall be treated as notice’ in Rule 142(6) is clearly distinguishable from those used in all other rules. By using the expression ‘shall be treated as notice’ in Rule 142(6), it becomes abundantly clear that law maker never intended to be used by the department DRC-07 a notice by its origin.

DRC-07 is not a notice in its original sense rather an order is fortifying from the following facts:

i) Language employed in Form DRC-07

ii) GSTIN portal has classified it under the head order although notice tab is already available

iii) Distinguishable facts over language used in all other parts of the Rules over ‘issuance/ service of notice’

INTERPRETATION OF RULE 142(6)

The Hon’ble Apex Court in LSE Securities Limited v. Commissioner 2013 (29) S.T.R. 591 has settled the principle of taxation: In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out place. Taxing statutes cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot imply provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency.

DRC-07 is the ultimate product of the adjudication proceeding, which starts with issuing SCN, thereafter receiving reply, providing opportunity of hearing and finally passing order. DRC-07 is not an order, but a Summary of Order. It specify the amount PAYABLE by the person concerned.

The legislature has used the word ‘payable’ which assumes great importance. Payable is the final outcome of an adjudication proceeding. Meaning thereby, if there is no adjudication in a given situation, nothing would be payable.

INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 75(12)

Let’s dissect Section 75 (12) which says as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in section 73 or section 74, where

i) any amount of self-assessed tax in accordance with a return furnished under section 39 remains unpaid, either wholly or partly, or

ii) any amount of interest payable on such tax remains unpaid, the same shall be recovered under the provisions of section 79.

Self-assessed Tax has been defined in explanation to section 75(12) to include differential tax on supplies declared in statement u/s 37 with those declared in return u/s 39. This is an inclusive definition. The very nature of Self-assessed tax has neither been defined anywhere in the Act nor in The General Clauses Act’ 1987. In the absence of specific definition in the law, it’s meaning has to derived from the common parlance. The character of unpaid self-assessed tax, as the name suggests, is that of an admitted tax as the same has been self-declared by the taxpayer himself in his return u/s 39. One can safely assign meaning to the expression ‘Self-assessed Tax’ as tax admitted by the taxpayer in his return.

Interest payable on Self-assessed Tax possibly means ‘interest leviable on self-assessed tax’. Legislature has used the phraseology ‘interest payable on such tax’. The legislature could have used the words ‘self-assessed interest’ in the manner it has used for self-assessed tax. By not using similar expression, the legislative intent is clear and unambiguous that interest itself is not self-assessed rather it is interest payable on self-assessed tax.

CAN INTEREST BE RECOVERED WITHOUT ADJUDICATION?

Section 75(12) of CGST Act reads as under – Notwithstanding anything contained in section 73 or section 74, where any amount of self-assessed tax in accordance with a return furnished under section 39 remains unpaid, either wholly or partly, or any amount of interest payable on such tax remains unpaid, the same shall be recovered under the provisions of section 79.

From the plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that department can directly proceed to recover interest on admitted self -assessed tax without going through the process of adjudication.

Now, when an assessee questions the quantification or determination or calculation of interest by the department, in such an eventuality, can the department by invoking section 79 directly proceed to recover such interest from the assessee or have to mandatorily to go through the process of adjudication?

Honble Jharkhand HC in the case of Mahadeo Construction Co. Vrs UOI (2020) 116 Taxmann.com 212, after considering the judgment of Honble Madras HC in the case of AC CGT Vrs Daejung Moparts P Ltd(2020) 116 Taxmann.com 372 and its own judgment in the case of Godavari Commodities Ltd Vrs UOI (2020) 114 Taxmann.com 563, has held in Para 21 as under: It is not a true that liability of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is automatic, but the said amount of interest is required to be calculated and intimated to an assesse. If an assesse disputes the liability of interest i.e. either disputes its calculation or even the leviability of interest, then the only option left for the Assessing Officer is to initiate proceedings either under Section 73 or 74 of the Act for adjudication of the liability of interest. Para 22 of the said judgment says that the department has to mandatorily go through the process of adjudication u/s 73 or 74 in the event assessee disputes the computation of very leviability of interest. Without completing such adjudication process interest amount cannot be termed as ‘amount payable under the Act’. This was followed by the judgment of honble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Narsingh Ispat P Ltd WP(T) No.177 of 2021 dated 22.03.2022 and R K Transport P Ltd. WP(T) 1404 of 2020 dated 16.02.2022.

Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of L C Infraprojects Pvt Ltd Vrs UOI 2019 (8) TMI 84 in Para 6 has held: _______________ The notion of the third respondent – Authority that Section 75(12) of the Act empowers the authorities to proceed with recovery without issuing Show Cause Notice is only misconceived. The said Section is applicable only to the self-assessment made by the assessee and not to quantification or determination made by the Authority. From the combined reading of Section 73 or Section 74 and subsection 12 of Section 75 of the Act it appears that if the amount of interest is not admitted by an assessee or if the same is disputed by the assesse, the tax authorities have to determine the same by means of adjudication inclusive of issuance of the show cause notice as per the procedures laid down in Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act and it is after such determination and adjudication that the recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the Act can be initiated by the authorities, instead of taking recourse to Section 75(12) of the Act.

Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P Ltd Civil Appln 21534 of 2019 dated 23.03.2021 while dealing with the question as to ‘whether issuance of DRC 01 under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 is legal and proper?’ has held in Para 8, 9 and 10 as below:

Para 8: Rule 142(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 reads thus: 1) The proper officer shall serve, along with the (a) notice issued under section 52 or section 73 or section 74 or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC01.”

Para 9: Thus, the plain reading of the aforesaid rules indicates that Form GST DRC 01 can be served by the proper officer along with the notice issued under Section 52 or Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 76 or Section 122 or Section 123 or Section 124 or Section 125 or Section 127 or Section 129 or Section 130 and that too, electronically as a summary of notice.

Para 10: We do not find reference of any notice under Section 50 so far as Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules is concerned. In such circumstances, DRC 01 could not have been issued for the purpose of recovery of the amount towards interest on delayed payment of tax.

With utmost respect to the honble High Court and with all humility, I beg to differ with the view expressed in the said order. Section 73(1)/ 74(1) expressly provide to issue show cause notice on interest as well. Further Section 73(9)/ 74(9) also provide to determine interest due from such person. Section 50 is the enabling section/ provision which provide leviability of interest in certain situations. Section 73, 74 and Rule 142, which are placed in ‘Chapter Demand and Recovery’, are the appropriate sections/ Rules/ provisions to deal with such issue.

WHETHER DRC-07 AN APPALABLE ORDER?

Section 107(1) says as under:

i) Any person aggrieved

ii) by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority

iii) may appeal to such Appellate Authority _________.

It is well established that ‘right to appeal’ is a right conferred by the statute. It is neither a fundamental, constitutional or vested right. In absence of such right being in a statute, no right to appeal exist.

On plain reading of the substantive provision, is it quite clear that appeal exist against the order of an adjudicating authority. Now the question that comes up in mind is that whether appeal exist against DRC-07 which by its original character is an order, by way of a deeming fiction and for the exclusive purpose of recovery, it has been treated as notice for recovery. Looking at the format of DRC-07 and the language used therein, it has become crystal clear that it is an order.

Among the various rules of interpretation, the one which gives the highest priority to the object of the legislation and advances such interpretation of statute, which helps in the fulfilment of the object of such statute, is the rule of purposive interpretation of statute.

In the celebrated case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the words of a statute, whenever there is a doubt about their meaning, have to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonize with the subject of the enactment and the object which the legislature has in its view. It was stated that “the meaning of the statute is not found in a strict grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained.”

It has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India on multiple occasions that whenever two interpretations are feasible the court will prefer such interpretation which advances the remedy and suppresses the mischief as it was envisioned by the legislature. It has been provided that the Court should adopt an object-oriented approach keeping in mind the principle that legislative futility is to be ruled out so long as interpretative possibility permits. Thus, it can be inferred that to the extent to which there is interpretive flexibility, the Court must seek to give such an interpretation to the statute which helps in the fulfilment of its ultimate objective and thereby prevents the same from becoming futile.

Looking at the front of principle of natural justice, it is imperative on the part of government agencies to follow the path of natural justice enshrined by way of various judicial pronouncements. If right to appeal, provided in the statute, is freezed, that would lead to absurd and unexpected situation. Rule of law must prevail to have fare play between law maker and taxpayer.

By presupposing that DRC-07 is a ‘notice of recovery’ (although language used in Rules is ‘notice for recovery’), the agencies may try to create havoc and freezing the right of the taxpayer to make appeal against such action of the agencies.

CONCLUSION

In the light of above discussion and considering the settled legal jurisprudence, it is imperative on the part of department to follow the principle of natural justice of issuing show cause notice, providing opportunity of being heard and finally passing order. Direct recovery of interest on unpaid self-assessed tax is gross violation of natural justice and runs contrary to settled jurisprudence. DRC-07 can never be the point of ignition of a valid notice. Had it been the intention of the law maker, instead of treating an order to be a notice, it would have employed suitable language to make it’s intent clear.

Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational and knowledge purpose. Neither have I accepted any liability for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any action taken in reliance thereon.

***

Extract of Relevant Provisions under GST Law:

Section 50(1): Every person who is liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, but fails to pay the tax or any part thereof to the Government within the period prescribed, shall for the period for which the tax or any part thereof remains unpaid, pay, on his own, interest at such rate, not exceeding eighteen per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council.

Provided that the interest on tax payable in respect of supplies made during a tax period and declared in the return for the said period furnished after the due date in accordance with the provisions of section 39, except where such return is furnished after commencement of any proceedings under section 73 or section 74 in respect of the said period, shall be payable on that portion of the tax which is paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger.

Section 50(2): The interest under sub-section (1) shall be calculated, in such manner as may be prescribed, from the day succeeding the day on which such tax was due to be paid.

Section 75 (12): Notwithstanding anything contained in section 73 or section 74, where any amount of self-assessed tax in accordance with a return furnished under section 39 remains unpaid, either wholly or partly, or any amount of interest payable on such tax remains unpaid, the same shall be recovered under the provisions of section 79.

Explanation.––For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “self-assessed tax” shall include the tax payable in respect of details of outward supplies furnished under section 37, but not included in the return furnished under section 39.

Section 78: Any amount payable by a taxable person in pursuance of an order passed under this Act shall be paid by such person within a period of three months from the date of service of such order failing which recovery proceedings shall be initiated

Provided that where the proper officer considers it expedient in the interest of revenue, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, require the said taxable person to make such payment within such period less than a period of three months as may be specified by him.

Section 79 (1): Where any amount payable by a person to the Government under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder is not paid, the proper officer shall proceed to recover the amount by one or more of the following modes, namely:––

Rule 142 (5): A summary of the order issued under section 52 or section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 73 or section 74 or section 75 or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130 shall be uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC-07, specifying therein the amount of [tax, interest and penalty, as the case may be, payable by the person concerned.

Rule 142 (6): The order referred to in sub-rule (5) shall be treated as the notice for recovery.

Section 107(1): Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.