Facts of the Case

Gemar Lollen and M/s M. L. Enterprise, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, challenged a notice dated 12.09.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Tax, Excise & Narcotics, West Siang District, Aalo, directing them to pay interest of Rs.20,09,046 under Section 73 of the GST Act within 30 days. The petitioners did not dispute the interest liability itself; instead, they sought permission to pay it in instalments under Section 80 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, having already made a representation to that effect to the Superintendent on 09.08.2022, which had been forwarded onward on 10.08.2022 but not acted upon.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioners' representation for instalment payment of interest under Section 80 of the SGST Act had been made to the correctly empowered authority.
  2. What relief was appropriate given the interest liability itself was not disputed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The payable interest could be allowed to be paid in instalments under Section 80 of the State GST Act, 2017, which the respondent authorities had not permitted despite the representation already submitted.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific opposing submissions are recorded; the disposal turned on the Court's own finding about which authority was actually empowered to grant instalment relief.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that although the petitioners contended it was the Commissioner, Tax, Excise & Narcotics Department who was empowered to allow instalment payment under Section 80, no representation had in fact been submitted to the Commissioner — the representation had only gone to the Superintendent, West Siang District, and, on his recommendation, to the Senior Audit Officer (GST).
  • The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation under Section 80 directly to the Commissioner, Tax, Excise & Narcotics Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
  • The Commissioner was directed to examine such representation on its own merits, including the applicability of Section 80 to the facts of the case.
  • The Court did not itself decide whether the petitioners were entitled to instalment payment — that determination was left to the Commissioner.

Important Clarification

This order does not decide the petitioners' entitlement to pay the GST interest in instalments — it simply corrects a procedural defect (the representation having gone to the wrong-level officer) and directs a fresh representation to the properly empowered Commissioner. Taxpayers seeking instalment relief under Section 80 of the GST Act should verify, at the outset, which authority under their State's rules is actually empowered to grant such relief, since representations to the wrong officer can cause delay without any decision on merits.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, Goods and Services Tax Act — determination of interest payable on tax.
  • Section 80, State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — payment of tax and other amounts in instalments.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the petitioners were directed to make a fresh representation to the correct authority (the Commissioner), who will decide the instalment request on its own merits.

Case Details

  • Court: Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench)
  • Case No.: WP(C) 320 of 2022
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
  • Date of Order: 19 September 2022

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.