Case Details: Samita Panda Versus Commissioner of CT & GST (2025) 33 Centax 34 (Ori.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
HARISH TANDON, CJ. and M.S. Raman, J.
- Ms. Kananbala Roy Choudhury, Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Shri Seshadeb Das, Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner was subjected to an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act read with the Orissa GST Act by the State Tax Officer, raising a demand comprising tax, interest, and penalty. Due to a system error, the tax component was erroneously reflected as zero in the Electronic Liability Ledger. The Petitioner filed an application in Form GST SPL-01 under Section 128A seeking waiver of interest and penalty. The Assessing Authority issued a notice stating that the error occurred during system entry and that the tax amount was reflected as zero, and rejected the application on the ground that the Petitioner had not deposited the tax, which was a basic requirement for availing the waiver. The Petitioner then filed a rectification application under Section 161, contending that since no tax liability was shown on the portal, the Assessing Authority was required to consider the waiver application on merits. The rectification request was also rejected. Subsequently, the Petitioner expressed willingness to discharge the tax liability to avail the benefit under Section 128A. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that, as the Petitioner was now willing to discharge the tax liability, the orders rejecting the waiver application and the rectification petition were to be set aside. It directed the Petitioner to deposit the amount of tax and ordered that the application for waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A be reconsidered afresh.
