0

NO SCOPE FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF CT & GST TO ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF INSTALMENT: ODISHA HIGH COURT

This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Odisha through the division bench of Justice Justices Jawant Singh and Murahari Sri Raman in the case of M/s. P.K. Ores Pvt. Ltd. @ M/S. PK Minings Pvt. Ltd. V Commissioner of Sales Tax (2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 102)

FACTS

The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, who claims to be a permanent resident of district Sambalpur, has challenged the ratio of reservation in the matter of election to the post of Panchayat Samiti Members under Rengali Panchayat Samiti in the district of Sambalpur fixed by the Collector, Sambalpur, vide notification dated 08.09.2016 in Annexure-1, on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in contravention of the judgment dated 11.05.2010 in K. K r is h n a M u r t h y (supra). He further seeks to declare Section 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, more particularly Sub-sections (2)(a), (2) (b-l), (3-a) (i) and (3-a) (ii-a) thereof, as ultra vires to the Constitution, as well as contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in K. K r is h n a M u r t h y (supra), as the same provides for reservation for SC, ST and OBC in excess of the upper ceiling limit of 50%. Insome of the local bodies reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates exceed 50% and the same is in violation of the dictum of the apex Court laid down in the case of K. K r is h n a Mu r t h y (supra). The exercise to determine the extent of proportionate reservation in consonance with the aforesaid judgment having not been undertaken, it is asserted that the recommendation of the Collector notified on 08.09.2016

JUDGEMENT

The court held that since interest is a part of tax and such tax being belated payment in respect of self-assessment, Section 80 of the OGST Act clearly excludes grant of instalment.

The court observed that the Commissioner is not conferred with the power to allow such an instalment in respect of the amount due as per the self-assessment return furnished. Section 80 empowers the Commissioner to grant permission only to the taxable person to make payment of any amount due on an instalment basis on an application filed electronically on Form GST DRC-20 as prescribed under Rule 158. The Commissioner, after considering the request by the taxable person on Form GST DRC-20 and the report of the jurisdictional officer, may issue an order on Form GST DRC-21. The commissioner may allow the taxable person to either extend the time or allow payment of any amount due under the Act on an instalment basis. Section 80 applies to amounts due other than the self-assessed liability shown in any return. The instalment period shall not exceed 24 months.

“The taxable person shall also be liable to pay prescribed interest on the amount due from the first day such tax was due to be payable till the date tax is paid. In view of the proviso to Section 80, if default occurs in payment of any one instalment, the taxable person would be required to pay the whole outstanding balance payable on such date of default itself without further notice. There was, therefore, no scope for the Commissioner of CT & GST to entertain an application for grant of instalment,” the court added.

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY NAISARGIKA MISHRA

Click here to view the judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat