1. The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition challenging the orders dated 17th February, 2020 and 19th June, 2020 issued by Respondent No.2 – The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, D.C. E-634, T.U.-3 (impugned orders).
2. According to the Petitioner, by the impugned orders, Respondent No. 2 seeks to directly recover interest under Section 50 of the GST Act through coercive recovery provisions of Section 79. This is clearly in contravention of Section 78 of the GST Act, which provides for a three-month breathing period after the passing of any order, before the coercive recovery provisions of Section 79 can be invoked.
3. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that the impugned orders are passed without issuing any show cause notice and without giving a hearing to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is not aware of how the interest calculation has been arrived at.
4. The Petitioner has also submitted that Respondent No.2 is threatening to initiate coercive recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the GST Act if the amount is not paid within a period of 7 days. The Respondent No.2 has filed its Affidavit in Reply dated 27th July, 2020. Paragraph 18 of which reads thus :
“18. With respect of paragraph No. 5 of the above Petition, I deny the conclusion arrived at by the Petitioner. It is humbly submitted that the email was sent to the Petitioner on 17th February, 2020 and 19th June, 2020 was merely an intimation of payment of interest under section 50 of CGST Act / MGST Act, 2017. The payment of interest is on account of late filing of Return-GSTR 3B from July, 2017. This office is conscious of the procedure required to be followed by it to recover and will initiate the recovery proceeding with issuance of show cause notice, working of interest calculation and further actions as per provision of law. There is no intention of this office to directly recover interest under Section 50 of the CGST / MGST Act, 2017. I therefore say that the above Writ Petition is not only without merits but premature and hence liable to be dismissed.”
6. In view of the above statements made in paragraph 18 of the Affidavit in Reply dated 27th July, 2020 filed by Respondent No.2, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner is not pressing for reliefs sought in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off.
7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.