Madras High Court
For assessee
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Madras, newest first.
2 rulings found
Madras High Court
Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A was available where proceedings had been initiated under section 73 even in respect of self assessed tax arising from belated filing of GSTR 3B, non obstante clause in section 75(12) permitting direct recovery under section 79 could not exclude such cases from amnesty scheme once liability was determined under section 73 GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A having been accepted and Form GST SPL 05 issued, authorities could not subsequently declare such approval void by invoking section 161 except in contingencies specifically contemplated under Rule 164(16) or 164(17) GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being governed by mandatory timelines under Rule 164, belated filing of application or payment beyond prescribed period could not be condoned on basis of substantial compliance, and rejection of waiver claim was justified GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being subject to mandatory filing timelines under Rule 164, belated or non filing of application on plea of lack of knowledge of section 73 order could not be condoned, and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed
Madras High Court
Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, liability to pay interest for belated tax payment arose under determination and recovery framework, and obligation to pay interest subsisted irrespective of subsequent payment or willingness to pay in instalments, rendering recovery of such interest under determination and recovery provisions fully justified. GST: Where petitioner initially discharged GST at a lower rate and later paid differential tax after departmental intimation regarding higher tax rate, interest on delayed payment remained payable under determination provisions and reference to extended period in DRC-01 and DRC-07 would not invalidate proceedings; matter required reconsideration of petitioner’s reply in light of business nature for a fresh order