Order Date – 23 January 2024

Parties; M/s.Eicher Motors Limited Vs The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s.Eicher Motors Limited, upon introduction of GST the Cenvat credit was transitioned into the GST regime by filing Form GST TRAN-1 on 16.10.2017. However the entire amount did not reflect in the Electronic Credit Ledger, the petitioner could not file the monthly return in Form GSTR-3B.
• Though the petitioner was disabled from filing the returns, the petitioner had discharged GST liability for the period from July, 2017 to December, 2017 by depositing the tax amounts in the Electronic Cash Ledger within the due date for each month. Later on 24.01.2018, the petitioner was permitted to file Form GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2017 to December, 2017. 
• After a lapse of around 6 years, the petitioner was visited with a Recovery notice dated 16.05.2023, demanding the payment of interest for alleged belated payment of GST from July, 2017 to December, 2017. The said recovery proceedings were initiated directly even without the issuance of show cause notice.

Issue –

• Whether the demand of interest on belated payment of GST is proper?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court observed that not later than the last date of filing of Form GSTR-3B, i.e., on or before 20th of every month, the tax should have been paid to the Government. The last date for payment of tax to Government would be the date not later than the last date on which he is required to furnish the monthly return. Thus, for payment of tax to Government filing the monthly returns is not the matter but the last date for furnishing the monthly return is important. Thus, whether the monthly return is filed in time or not but the GST has to be remitted not later than the last date for filing the monthly returns.
• In the present case, the GST amount has been paid by generating GST PMT-06 before the due date without any delay. If any amount is deposited after due date, for the said amount alone, the payment of interest would arise in terms of provisions of Section 50(1) of the Act.
• In view of the above finding and following the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid Vishnu Aroma case, since in the present case, the tax amount has already been credited to the Government within the prescribed time limit, i.e., before due date, the question of payment of interest would not arise.
• The writ petitions are allowed.