2025(06)LCX0449

Smti Gichak Daniam

Versus

Union of India

WP(C) 236/2025 decided on 02-06-2025

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)

Case No. : WP(C)/236/2025

Smti Gichak Daniam
Wife of Shri Thaji Gichak Kiogi, resident of Forest Colony, Chimpu, PO Chimpu, PS
Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 791113

VERSUS

The Union of India and 2 Ors
represented by the Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi 110001

2:The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise
Age: 0
Occupation :
Itanagar
Arunachal Pradesh.

3:The Assistant Commissioner (P and V)
Age: 0
Occupation :
Central Good and Service Tax and Central Excise
Itanagar

Advocate for the Petitioner         : Kemo Lollen, Nyai Loyi,Ravi Shankar Mishra,Arun Yun,Maryum
Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado

Advocate for the Respondent     : Marto Kato, Tania Kipa,DSGI

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER

Date : 02.06.2025

Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DySGI for the respondent No. 1; and Mr. M.K. Boro, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. T. Kipa, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an assessee, registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, bearing registration No. 12CBGPD5633M1ZR and has been discharging his liabilities of payment of GST etc. as and when fell due. Mr. Mishra also submits that the petitioner was apprised by the respondent authorities about GST liability for a sum of Rs. 5,79,31,327.26/-, and out of the said amount, and having been so informed, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 1,05,31,034/-, and there is a balance amount of Rs. 4,74,00,293.26/-, and that the petitioner is being pressurized by the respondent authorities to make immediate payment of the balance amount, and also he is being threatened with coercive action if the aforesaid amount is not paid immediately. Mr. Mishra further submits that the petitioner is not in a position to make payment of the entire amount in one go because of his financial condition, and that he has filed one representation before the respondent No. 2 on 26.05.2025, for allowing him to deposit the balance amount in instalments. But the said representation failed to evoke any response from the authorities also. Mr. Mishra submits that Section 80 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘Act of 2017’, for short) provides that the payment of tax and other amount may be made in instalments, and in that view of the matter, the respondent authorities may be directed to dispose of his representation dated 26.05.2025, keeping in mind the provision of Section 80 of the Act of 2017.

3. Mr. Kato, learned DySGI for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Boro, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submit that they have no objection in the event of disposing of this petition with the aforementioned direction.

4. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused Section 80 of the Act of 2017.

5. Section 80 of the Act of 2017 reads as under:

“80. Payment of tax and other amount in instalments.— On an application filed by a taxable person, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time for payment or allow payment of any amount due under this Act, other than the amount due as per the liability self-assessed in any return, by such person in monthly instalments not exceeding twenty four, subject to payment of interest under section 50 and subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed:

Provided that where there is default in payment of any one instalment on its due date, the whole outstanding balance payable on such date shall become due and payable forthwith and shall, without any further notice being served on the person, be liable for recovery.”

6. A cursory perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that on an application filed by the assessee, the Commissioner may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, allow such payment in monthly instalments not exceeding twenty four,however, subject to payment of interest under Section 50.

7. In the case in hand, the outstanding amount due to be paid by the petitioner is Rs. 4,74,00,293.26/-, and it is the categorical contention of the petitioner that because of his financial liability, he cannot make payment of the entire amount in one go.

8. Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, and also in view of the provision of Section 80 of the Act of 2017, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 26.05.2025, filed by the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by a reasoned order, keeping in mind the provision of Section 80 of the Act of 2017 as well as the financial liability of the petitioner. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a week from today.

9. It is further provided that till disposal of the representation dated 26.05.2025, the respondent No. 2 shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner.

10. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE