0

The Kerala High Court upholds the penalty for failing to deposit GST collected within 30 days of notice even when the tax has been paid

Blog ,

Title: M/s. Global Plasto Wears v. Assistant Tax Officer
Decided on: 17 October, 2023

+ WP (C) No. 33787 of 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
Introduction

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the taxpayer must file a penalty when the amount of GST collected is not credited to the government, even if the GST and interest are filed within 30 days of the notice provided for the demand related to the GST non-payment.

Facts of the Case

The Revenue Department issued a Show Cause Notice to M/s. Global Plasto Wares on February 28, 2022, requesting that they pay the GST. In accordance with the FORM GST DRC-03 receipt dated March 10, 2022, the petitioner paid the whole amount of GST requested plus interest. A notice dated May 11, 2023, requesting payment of the penalty amount was sent to the petitioner. By order dated September 14, 2023, the petitioner requested the amount of the penalty to be paid in accordance with Sections 20(xxv) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Sections 73(9) read with Section 73(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order, filed a writ petition with the Hon’ble Kerala High Court.

Courts analysis and decision

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court observed that the primary question on the table, is whether the petitioner must pay the penalty even though they have previously paid the GST amount and interest within 30 days of getting the notice. It should be noted that the demand for GST payment was made because the supplier had not credited the government with the full amount of GST that the provider had received from the receiver. concluded that the petitioner is responsible for paying the penalty under Section 73 of the CGST Act since the amount of GST collected by the petitioner has not been deposited with the government within 30 days of the GST payment deadline. The Hon’ble court held that the Respondent has adopted the correct stance, and there hasn’t been any legal error that calls for the court to get involved. The writ petition is therefore denied.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

0

Period Of Unauthorised Absence Is Treated As ‘Non- Duty’ For All Purposes Except Pension: High Court Of Kerala

Uncategorized , , ,

Title: G.K.Reddy Versus DCIT

 Citation: WP(C) NO.35727 OF 2019

Decided on: 19th  Of October 2023

Introduction:

Petition is to issue a writ of certiorari, quashing document to the extent to which it denies promotion to the petitioner as Senior OCIOA and promotes the  respondent as Senior OCIOA. To declare that petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Senior OCIOA in the retirement vacancy of Sri.P.A. Sasidharan and that he is entitled to be promoted to the post of programmer ahead of the respondent. And to request a writ of mandamus directing other respondents to promote him to the post of programmer.

Facts:

The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (for short ‘LDC’) and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk/Shed Clerk and thereafter as Operator cum Input/ Output Assistant (for short OCIOA). His appointment as OCIOA was on 30.12.1999 and he was included as Rank No.4 out of 13 candidates for promotion to the post of Senior OCIOA/Programmer. submitted that the  respondent who had lesser marks than the petitioner was included as rank No.12 in the list.

By virtue of the Recruitment Rules as it stood in 2016, the post of Senior OCIOA is to be filled up by promotion from the post of OCIOA with two years regular service or from Accountant with three years regular service. The petitioner contends that the  respondent who was his immediate senior in the seniority list of OCIOA was punished for unauthorised absence from 01.05.2015 to 18.05.2015.

It is contended that due to treating of the said period of 18 days as non- duty, the respondent became junior to the petitioner and it was the petitioner who ought to have been promoted as Senior OCIOA. The petitioner relying on several judgments contended that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right.

in State of Punjab v. Dr.P.L. Singla [2008(3) KHC 968], it is contended that when the period of unauthorised absence is found after conducting due disciplinary proceedings and the period is specifically treated as unauthorised absence and ‘non-duty’ for all purposes except pension, then, the period cannot be taken into account for any purposes except pension.

Court’s decision and Analysis:

it is clear that the parties are in agreement that the provisions of the Fundamental Rules and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and the principles contained therein apply to the service in question. there is a clear distinction between a person who holds a lein to a post and a person who is deemed to be on duty in the post. When a period of unauthorised absence is treated as ‘non- duty’ for all purposes except pension, the consequence would be that the period will not constitute a break in service for the purpose of pension and the officer will not lose his lein in the post. However, he cannot treat the period as duty for any other purpose including seniority.

The contention of the petitioner that the said period cannot be treated as duty for reckoning seniority is liable to be accepted in view of the fact that order has become final without any challenge being raised by the respondent. In the result, the order is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior OCIOA in preference to the respondent, treating the period of service of the respondent from 01.05.2015 to 18.05.2015 as non-duty for the purpose of reckoning seniority.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgment

1 2 3