M/S Jindal Steel And Power Ltd vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1697 Chatt

                                           1

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                              WPT No. 112 of 2022
             M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Versus Union of India & Ors



30.03.2022          Shri B. Lakshminarasimhan, Advocate & Shri Shashank Thakur,

             Advocate for the petitioner.

                    Shri Ram Narayan Sahu, Senior Penal Counsel for respondent

No.1/Union of India.

Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent

No.3/Deputy Commissioner issued letter dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure

P-7) directing the petitioner to deposit balance interest of

Rs.20,15,20,625/- for the period from July 2017 to June 2020 till 28 th of

March, 2022. He submits that any recovery under the Scheme of

Central Goods and Service Tax, Act 2017, (for short, 'CGST Act') can be

made only after determining amount of liability upon the petitioner. For

determining the amount under the Act of 2017, show-cause-notice is

required to be issued to petitioner giving opportunity to him to file reply

and only thereafter the amount can be determined. No such notice, as

required under Sections 73 or 74 of CGST Act, has been issued by

respondent-department and straightway impugned letter/notice dated

25.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) has been issued, which is not sustainable.

He submits that liability for payment of interest is provided under Section

50 (1) of the CGST Act, but for determining the liability of payment of

interest also respondents are required to issue notice under Section 73

of CGST Act. In support of his contentions, he places his reliance upon

the judgment passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in case of M/s.

Narsing Ispat Ltd vs Union of India & Ors reported in 2022 (3) TMI

1047 and Union of India vs M/s. LC Infra Projects Pvt Ltd reported in

2020 (4) TMI 664, Karnataka High Court.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that petitioner

was served with letter in the month of August 2021 demanding interest,

which was replied by petitioner. Hence, it cannot be said that impugned

letter dated 25.03.2022 directing petitioner to deposit aforementioned

amount as balance of interest, is without any notice or in violation of

principles of natural justice. However, he submits that he may be

granted three weeks' time to file detailed reply to writ petition as also IA

No.1/2022 application for grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as impugned letter

(Annexure P-7) has been issued contrary to the provisions of law and in

violation of the principles of natural justice, petitioner prays for interim

protection of staying effect an operation of letter dated 25.03.2022

(Annexure P-7).

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that after

receiving copy of writ petition, upon discussion he was informed in

writing by respondents that they will not take any coercive steps

pursuant to the impugned letter (Annexure P-7) till disposal of IA

No.1/2022, application for grant of interim relief.

In view of above facts of the case and submissions of counsel for

the respective parties, it is directed that respondents shall not take any

coercive steps against petitioner pursuant to the impugned letter dated

25.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) till the next date of hearing.

List the matter immediately after three weeks.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Jamal/-