1 IN HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 3517 of 2019 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau through its partner Anil Kumar Singh. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Central Revenue Building, Ranchi. 2. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi North Division, Ranchi. 3. Superintendent, Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Daltonganj Range, Daltonganj, Palamau. Respondents ------- PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi John, Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. -------- JUDGEMENT CAV on: 02/03/2020 Pronounced on: 21/04/2020 Per Deepak Roshan, J:- issues involved in present writ application are of seminal importance, namely (i) Whether interest liability under Section 50 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short CGST Act ) can be determined without initiating any adjudication process either u/s 73 or 74 of CGST Act in event of assesse raising dispute towards liability of interest? (ii) Whether recovery proceedings u/s 79 of CGST Act can be initiated for recovery of interest u/s 50 of said Act without initiation and completion of adjudication proceedings under Act? 2. facts of present writ application lie in very narrow compass. petitioner, being partnership firm, was registered under provisions of CGST Act. Under Section 39 of CGST Act, provisions have been incorporated for furnishing of monthly return by registered person on or before 20th day of month succeeding such calendar month in which 2 returns were to be filed. Said returns are known as GSTR-3 Return . However, it is admitted fact that due to Nationwide problem in GSTN Portal, said GSTR-3 Return, which is auto populated return on basis of details of inward and outward supply, is not being generated, due to which, by way of stop-gap arrangement, provisions have been incorporated for filing GSTR-3B Return in terms of Rule 61(5) read with Rule 61(6) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short CGST Rules ). 3. Further, under Section 39(7) of CGST Act, it is provided, inter alia, that registered person, who is required to furnish his return under sub- section (1) of Section 39, would be liable to pay to Government tax due as per such return not later than last date on which dealer is required to furnish such return. conjoint reading of Section 39(1) read with Section 39(7) of CGST Act would reveal that dealer was liable to pay tax within 20th day of succeeding month for which said dealer was liable to file GSTR-3 Return. However, since very onset of implementation of GST regime, filing of monthly return u/s 39, being GSTR-3, was suspended and continues to be suspended till today, and, return in GSTR-3B is required to be filed by registered person. 4. From time to time, due date for filing such return in GSTR-3B has been extended by respondent-Authorities. 5. It is case of petitioner that in GSTN Portal, due date for filing of GSTR 3B Return for month of February, 2018 and March, 2018 was reflecting as 31st March 2019 and petitioner reasonably believed that due date of filing of GSTR-3B Return for months of February and March, 2018 has been extended up to 31st March, 2019 and in said background, petitioner filed its monthly return for month of February, 2018 and March, 2018 within due date as reflected in GSTN Portal, as would be evident from Annexure-4 of writ application. petitioner was served with letter dated 8th March, 2019 issued by Superintendent of Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise (Respondent No.3) directing petitioner to make payment of interest amounting to Rs.19,59,721/- on ground of delay in filing of GSTR-3B Return for months of February and March, 2018. said letter contained in Annexure-7 is impugned in present 3 writ application. respondent-Authorities further exercised powers under Section 79 of CGST Act by initiating garnishee proceedings for recovery of aforesaid amount of interest by issuing notice to petitioner s Banker. Said initiation of garnishee proceedings under Section 79 of CGST Act is also impugned in present writ application. 6. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has vehemently submitted that impugned letter dated 08.03.2019 issued by respondent No.3 demanding interest amount of Rs.19,59,721/- on alleged ground of delay in submitting GSTR-3B Return for months of February and March, 2018, is not sustainable in eyes of law, as said amount of interest has been determined without initiating any adjudication process under Sections 73 or 74 of CGST Act. It is specific case of petitioner that petitioner is not liable to pay interest as there has been no delay on its part in furnishing of GSTR-3B Return and, consequentially, there is no delay on its part in depositing tax with respondent- Authority, as in GSTN Portal, due date for furnishing of return for months of February and March, 2018 was shown as 31st March, 2019. 7. It has been further argued by Mr. Gadodia that if amount of interest is not admitted by assesse, same requires determination through adjudication process to be initiated as per detailed provisions contained under Section 73 of CGST Act. 8. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that not only that respondent-Authorities, without initiating adjudication process, have straightaway demanded interest from petitioner, but they have, in most arbitrary and illegal manner, by adopting extra legal steps, initiated garnishee proceedings under Section 79 of CGST Act for recovery of amount of interest. It has been contended that provisions of Section 79 of CGST Act can be adopted only when any amount payable by person to Government under provisions of Act and Rules is not paid . It has been submitted that words any amount payable is to be interpreted in context in which it has been used and amount payable (unless admitted) can only be determined by initiating adjudication process as provided under Section 73 or 74 of CGST Act. It is 4 specific case of petitioner that since petitioner has not admitted its liability of interest, said interest liability to be classified as amount payable under Act and/or Rules, necessarily requires adjudication process and, in absence thereof, initiation of garnishee proceedings is not sustainable in eyes of law and even amounts to taking extra legal steps for recovery of amount from assessee. 9. Per contra, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent submitted that present dispute pertains to recovery of interest not on ground of delay in filing of GSTR-3B Return, but on ground of delayed payment of tax beyond stipulated date as prescribed under Section 39(1) read with Section 39(7) of CGST Act. It is case of revenue that once there is delay in payment of tax, liability to pay interest on same becomes automatic, for which no separate proceedings is required to be initiated for determining such interest liability. 10. It has been further submitted by learned counsel of respondent that it is admitted case of default in filing self-assessed monthly statement/ return within statutory period and payment of admitted self-assessed tax, which consequentially attracts payment of interest under Section 50 of CGST Act. In other words, it has been contended that payment of interest as envisaged under Section 50 of Act is automatic and is to be paid by defaulter at his own without initiating any adjudication process under Section 73 or 74 of CGST Act. Further, while referring to Section 73 or 74 of CGST Act, it has been contended that said Sections are not applicable in instant case, as it relates only to demand and recovery of tax not paid or short paid either on account of fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts, or otherwise. It has been further contended by respondents that due date as reflected in GSTN Portal as 31 st March, 2019 for furnishing of GSTR-3B monthly return for months of February and March, 2018 was reflecting owning to fact that Central Government, through Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, vide Notification No. 76/2018-Central Tax dated 31st December, 2018 (Annexure -3 series) has waived levy of late fee for furnishing returns for months of July, 2017 to September, 2018, if said returns were furnished between 5 period 22nd December, 2018 to 31st March, 2019, and said Notification cannot be interpreted to mean that last date of filing of GSTR-3B Return has been extended up to 31st March, 2019. Learned counsel for revenue, in support of his contention that liability for payment of interest is automatic and does not require any adjudication process, has relied upon following two decisions, namely;-- (1) 2004 (5) SCC 472 (U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations Vs- West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & ors.) (2) 2010 (2) SCC 672 (Commissioner of Central Excise Vs- International Auto Limited) 11. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for revenue further, while justifying action of initiation of garnishee proceedings under Section 79 of CGST Act, contended that since liability for payment of interest is automatic on delayed payment of tax, amount of interest is amount payable under Act or Rules and since assessee, despite notices being issued to it, has failed to discharge said liability, it was well within competence of respondent-Authorities to initiate garnishee proceedings under Section 79 of CGST Act by attaching Bank account of petitioner. 12. We have heard parties and have given our conscious consideration to issue involved in instant writ application, which according to us, is of seminal importance owing to fact that CGST Act is new enactment and question raised herein will have bearing upon large number of assesses. 13. Before adverting to issues involved in instant writ application, we may like to refer earlier order dated 24.07.2019 passed by this Court in instant writ petition, wherein we have noted that screen shots of G.S.T.N Portal showing due date for furnishing monthly returns for February and March 2018, as 31st March 2019, as contained in Annexures 4 and 4/1 to writ application, were not denied by learned counsel for C.G.S.T. It is admitted position that on GSTN Portal for months of February and March, 2018, due date for filing return was reflecting as 31 st March, 2019. Although it was contended that said due date has been 6 reflected on GSTN Portal only because waiver of Late Fee was notified by Central Government for delay in filing Return for said month up to 31st March,2019, and due date for filing such return was not extended up to 31st March, 2019. Be that as it may, fact remains that on GSTN Portal, due date for filing monthly return for February and March, 2018 was reflected as 31st March, 2019 and, admittedly, Petitioner filed its returns for said months much prior to said date. After noticing said fact, this Court, vide order dated 24.07.2019, stayed operation of garnishee notice contained in Order dated 22.05.2019 (Annexure-10 of Supplementary Affidavit) and directed respondents to file their counter affidavit. 14. At this stage, we may indicate here that this Court is not expressing any opinion as to whether petitioner was liable to pay interest or not, which, in opinion of Court, is required to be adjudicated first by Revenue Authorities. However, aforesaid facts are noted by us in our Judgment for limited purpose to indicate that there was dispute between Assessee-Petitioner and Revenue regarding liability of interest for alleged delayed filing of monthly return for months of February and March, 2018 and, consequentially, alleged delay in payment of tax. 15. In backdrop of aforesaid fact, we proceed to decide main issues involved for adjudication in instant writ application, which have already been delineated hereinabove. For purpose of adjudicating said issues, it would be relevant to quote some of provisions of CGST Act, which are as under:- Section -39 39. Furnishing of returns (1) Every registered person, other than Input Service Distributor or non-resident taxable person or person paying tax under provisions of section 10 or section 51 or section 52 shall, for every calendar month or part thereof, furnish, in such form, manner and within such time as may be prescribed, return, electronically, of inward and outward supplies of goods or services or both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid and such other particulars as may be prescribed: 7 PROVIDED that Government may, on recommendations of Council, notify certain classes of registered persons who shall furnish return for every quarter or part thereof, subject to such conditions and safeguards as may be specified therein. Section 39(7) (7) Every registered person, who is required to furnish return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (5), shall pay to Government tax due as per such return not later than last date on which he is required to furnish such return: PROVIDED that Government may, on recommendations of Council, notify certain classes of registered persons who shall pay to Government tax due or part thereof as per return on or before last date on which he is required to furnish such return, subject to such conditions and safeguards as may be specified therein. Section 50 50. Interest on delayed payment of tax (1) Every person who is liable to pay tax in accordance with provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder, but fails to pay tax or any part thereof to Government within period prescribed, shall for period for which tax or any part thereof remains unpaid, pay, on his own, interest at such rate, not exceeding eighteen per cent, as may be notified by Government on recommendations of Council. (2) interest under sub-section (1) shall be calculated, in such manner as may be prescribed, from day succeeding day on which such tax was due to be paid. (3) taxable person who makes undue or excess claim of input tax credit under sub-section (10) of section 42 or undue or excess reduction in output tax liability under sub-section (1) of section 43, shall pay interest on such undue or excess claim or on such undue or excess reduction, as case may be, at such rate not exceeding twenty-four per cent, as may be notified by Government on recommendations of Council. Section 73 73. Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized for any reason other than fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. (1) Where it appears to proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilized for any reason, 8 other than reason of fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilized input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay amount specified in notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and penalty leviable under provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder. (2) proper officer shall issue notice under sub-section (1) at least three months prior to time limit specified in sub- section (10) for issuance of order. (3) Where notice has been issued for any period under sub- section (1), proper officer may serve statement, containing details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on person chargeable with tax. (4) service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under sub-section (1), subject to condition that grounds relied upon for such tax periods other than those covered under sub-section (1) are same as are mentioned in earlier notice. (5) person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-section (1) or, as case may be, statement under sub-section (3), pay amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 on basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or tax as ascertained by proper officer and inform proper officer in writing of such payment. (6) proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1), or, as case may be, statement under sub-section (3), in respect of tax so paid or any penalty payable under provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder. (7) Where proper officer is of opinion that amount paid under sub-section (5) falls short of amount actually payable, he shall proceed to issue notice as provided for in sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of amount actually payable. (8) Where any person chargeable with tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) pays said tax along with interest payable 9 under section 50 within thirty days of issue of show cause notice, no penalty shall be payable and all proceedings in respect of said notice shall be deemed to be concluded. (9) proper officer shall, after considering representation, if any, made by person chargeable with tax, determine amount of tax, interest and penalty equivalent to ten per cent of tax or ten thousand rupees, whichever is higher, due from such person and issue and order. (10) proper officer shall issue order under sub-section (9) within three years from due date for furnishing of annual return for financial year to which tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized relates to or within three years from date of erroneous refund. (11) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub- section (8), penalty under sub-section (9) shall be payable where any amount of self-assessed tax or any amount collected as tax has not been paid within period of thirty days from due date of payment of such tax. (Emphasis Supplied) 16. bare reading of provisions of Section 39(1) read with Section 39(7) of CGST Act would reveal that dealer is liable to pay tax within 20th day of succeeding month for which dealer was liable to file his monthly return. 17. Further, Section 50 of Act contains provisions relating to Levy of Interest on delayed payment of tax. reading of sub-section (2) of Section 50 itself would reveal that interest payable under sub-section (1) of Section 50 is required to be calculated in such manner, as may be prescribed. 18. However, important issue for consideration in instant writ application is interpretation of provisions of Section 73 of Act. bare reading of Section 73(1) of Act reveals that where it appears to Proper Officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid Proper Officer shall serve notice on person chargeable with tax, which has not been so paid or which has been short paid requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay amount specified in notice along with interest payable thereon under Section 50 of Act and penalty leviable under provisions of Act and Rules. Thus, bare reading of Section 10 73(1) would reveal that if tax has not been paid or has been short paid, notice is required to be served by Proper Officer on assesse not only requiring him to show cause as to why tax be not recovered from it, but also specifying in notice interest payable under Section 50 also to be recovered along with penalty. Thus, if there is short payment of tax or non- payment of tax, notice is required to be issued even for recovery of interest under Section 50 of CGST Act. 19. question would, therefore, arise that if assesse, who has already paid tax, but has paid same after some delay, would fall within expression tax not being paid or short paid . aforesaid issue has already been answered by this Court in case of Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors., reported in 2019 SCC Online Jhar 1839, as under:- 8. plain reading of this provision shows that this provision shall be fully applicable in cases where tax was not paid for any reason other than fraud. In present case, though it is submitted by learned counsel for CGST that since tax was paid, fact remains that tax was not paid by petitioner Company in Government account within due date, and accordingly, it is case of tax not being paid, within period prescribed, or when due. In that view of matter, we are unable to accept contention of learned counsel for CGST that no show-cause notice was required to be given in this case. Even otherwise, if any penal action is taken against petitioner, irrespective of fact whether there is provision under Act or not, minimum requirement is that principles of natural justice must be followed. In present case admittedly, prior to issuance of letter dated 6.2.2019, no show-cause notice or opportunity of being heard was given to petitioner and no adjudication order was passed. 20. This Court, while interpreting term tax not paid has held that if tax has not been paid within prescribed period, same would fall with expression tax not paid as mentioned under Section 73 of CGST Act. aforesaid interpretation further finds support from other sub- sections of Section 73, particularly sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 73. bare reading of aforesaid sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 73 would reveal that person chargeable with tax, if before service of notice pays amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under Section 50 of Act on basis of his own ascertainment, then Assessing Officer, 11 if satisfied that correct tax along with interest has been paid by said assesse, shall not issue any notice under Section 73(1) of Act. However, Section 73(7) of Act provides that if assesse, who has itself on his own ascertainment, deposited tax along with interest, but if in opinion of Proper Officer, amount paid on own ascertainment falls short of amount actually payable, then notice would be issued by said Proper Officer under Section 73 (1) of Act for recovery of actual amount payable. Thus, from conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions, it would be evident that even in case where assesse files his return as per his own ascertainment, pays tax and even pays interest, but if said amount paid by assesse is falling short of amount actually payable, Proper Officer is required to initiate proceedings under Section 73(1) for recovery of said amount of tax and interest. natural corollary of above interpretation is that if assesse has allegedly delayed in filing his return, but discharges liability of only tax on his own ascertainment and does not discharge liability of interest, only recourse available to Proper Officer would be to initiate proceedings under Section 73(1) of CGST Act for recovery of amount of short paid or not paid interest on tax amount. 21. It is not true that liability of interest under Section 50 of CGST Act is automatic, but said amount of interest is required to be calculated and intimated to assesse. If assesse disputes liability of interest i.e. either disputes its calculation or even leviability of interest, then only option left for Assessing Officer is to initiate proceedings either under Section 73 or 74 of Act for adjudication of liability of interest. Recently, Hon ble Madras High Court, in its decision dated 19th December, 2019 rendered in Writ Appeals in case of Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise and others Vs. Daejung Moparts Pvt. Ltd. and ors, has taken similar view. said Writ Appeals were initially decided by Two Judges Bench of Hon ble Madras High Court and divergent views were taken by Hon ble Judges on issue of initiation of adjudication proceedings before imposing liability of interest under Section 50 of Act. matter was, thus, referred to learned Third 12 Judge, which was decided vide Judgment dated 19th December 2019 in following terms:- 27. careful perusal of above said provision would show that every person who is liable to pay tax, but fails to pay same or any part thereof within period prescribed shall, on his own, pay interest at such rate not exceeding 18% for period for which tax or any part thereof remains unpaid. Thus, sub clause (1) of Section 50 clearly mandates assesse to pay interest on his own for period for which tax or any part thereof remains unpaid. liability to pay interest is evidently fastened on assesse and same has to be discharged on his own. Thus, there cannot be any two view on liability to pay interest under Section 50(1) of said Act. In other words, such liability is undoubtedly automatic liability fastened on assesse to pay on his own for period for which tax or any part thereof remains unpaid. 28. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 contemplates that interest under Sub-section (1) shall be calculated in such manner as prescribed from day succeeding day on which such tax was due to be paid. Sub-section (3) of Section 50 further contemplates that taxable person who makes undue or excess claim of input tax credit under Section 42(10) or undue or excess reduction in output tax liability under Section 43 (10) shall have to pay interest on undue or excess claim or such undue or excess reduction, at rate not exceeding 24 percent. 29. careful perusal of sub Sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 thus would show that though liability to pay interest under Section 50 is automatic liability, still quantification of such liability, certainly, cannot be by way of unilateral action, more particularly, when assesse disputes with regard to period for which tax alleged to have not been paid or quantum of tax allegedly remains unpaid. Likewise, whether undue or excess claim of input tax credit or reduction in output tax liability was made, is also question of fact which needs to be considered and decided after hearing objections of assesse, if any. Therefore, in my considered view, though liability fastened on assesse to pay interest is automatic liability, quantification of such liability certainly needs arithmetic exercise after considering objections if any, raised by assesse. It is to be noted that term automatic does not mean or to be construed as excluding arithmetic exercise . In other words, though liability to pay interest arises under Section 50 of said Act, it does not mean that fixing quantum of such liability can be unilateral, especially, when assesse disputes quantum as well as period of liability. Therefore, in my considered view, though liability of interest under section 50 is automatic, quantification of such liability shall have to be made by doing arithmetic exercise, after considering objections of assessee. Thus I answer first issue accordingly. Xxx xxx xxx 13 31. It is to be noted at this juncture that in both writ petitions, respective writ petitioners are not disputing their liability to pay interest on delayed payment of tax. On other hand, they are disputing quantum of interest claimed by Revenue by contending that interest liability was worked out on entire tax liability instead of restricting liability to extent of tax unpaid. It is further seen that writ petitioners have placed some worksheets, wherein they have claimed some ITC credit for every month as well. Their grievance before Writ Court was that impugned bank attachment ought not to have been resorted to without determining actual quantum of liability. 32. Therefore, it is evident that dispute between parties to litigation is not with regard to very liability to pay interest itself but only on quantum of such liability. In order to decide and determine such quantum, objections raised by each petitioners shall have to be, certainly, considered. Undoubtedly unilateral quantification of interest liability cannot be justified especially when assesse has something to say on such quantum. Writ Court, thus, in above line, has disposed writ petitions, that too, on condition that petitioner in each case should pay admitted liability of interest. 33. careful perusal of direction issued by Writ Court does not indicate anywhere as to how Revenue is prejudiced by said order, especially when Revenue is given liberty to pass order in manner known to law and communicate same to petitioners, after considering their objections. Thus, I find that Writ Appeals preferred against said orders of Writ Court, as observed by Dr. Vineet Kothari, J, are wholly unnecessary. Therefore, I am in agreement with view expressed by Dr. Vineet Kothari, J., as I find that entertaining writ appeal is not warranted, since Writ Court has not determined interest liability of each petitioners against interest of Revenue in any manner and on other hand, it only remitted matter back to concerned Officer to determine quantum of such liability. Thus, second question with regard to maintainability of writ appeals is answered accordingly. 22. next issue for adjudication in instant writ application is as to whether garnishee proceedings under Section 79 of CGST Act can be initiated for recovery of interest without adjudicating liability of interest, when same is admittedly disputed by assesse. Section 79 of CGST Act empowers authorities to initiate garnishee proceedings for recovery of tax where any amount payable by person to Government under any of provisions of Act and Rules made thereunder is not paid . Since in preceding paragraphs of our Judgment, we have already held that though liability of interest is automatic, but same is required 14 to be adjudicated in event assesse disputes computation or very leviability of interest, by initiation of adjudication proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of CGST Act, in our opinion, till such adjudication is completed by Proper Officer, amount of interest cannot be termed as amount payable under Act or Rules. Thus, without initiation of any adjudication proceedings, no recovery proceeding under Section 79 of Act can be initiated for recovery of interest amount. 23. Accordingly, impugned order dated 08.03.2019 issued by Respondent No.3 (Superintendent, Daltonganj Range) (as contained in Annexure-7) is hereby quashed/set aside and, further, garnishee notice contained in Order dated 22.05.2019 (Annexure-10 of Supplementary Affidavit) issued under Section 79 of CGST Act to Banker of petitioner for recovery of interest amount of Rs.19,59,721/- is also, hereby, quashed/set aside. 24. It shall be open for respondent Authorities to initiate appropriate adjudication proceeding either under Section 73 or 74 of CGST Act (as case may be) against petitioner-assessee and determine liability of interest, if any, in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 25. Accordingly, writ application is allowed. However, no order as to costs. (Deepak Roshan, J.) H.C. Mishra, J:- I agree (H.C. Mishra, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated:21/04/2020 NAFR/Pramanik Mahadeo Construction Co. v. Union of India / Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi / Superintendent, Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Daltonganj Range, Palamau