Denial of Tax Payment in Installments: Gauhati HC stays Coercive Steps against Petitioner before Disposal of Representation [Read Order]
Justice Robin Phukan stayed recovery proceedings against the proprietor of a small trading concern
![Denial of Tax Payment in Installments: Gauhati HC stays Coercive Steps against Petitioner before Disposal of Representation [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/08/2041713-denial-of-tax-payment-installments-gauhati-hc-coercive-steps-taxscan.webp "Denial of Tax Payment in Installments: Gauhati HC stays Coercive Steps against Petitioner before Disposal of Representation [Read Order]")
The Gauhati High Court has granted short-term relief to a GST-registered trader, telling tax officials not to resort to “coercive action” until they pass a reasoned order on the request to clear arrears in instalments. Justice Robin Phukan stayed recovery proceedings against the proprietor of a small trading concern—who was recently informed that she owed ₹5.79 crore in...
The Gauhati High Court has granted short-term relief to a GST-registered trader, telling tax officials not to resort to “coercive action” until they pass a reasoned order on the request to clear arrears in instalments.
Justice Robin Phukan stayed recovery proceedings against the proprietor of a small trading concern—who was recently informed that she owed ₹5.79 crore in Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST). The petitioner has already remitted ₹1.05 crore but says the outstanding ₹4.74 crore cannot be paid in one tranche without crippling her business. When her written plea of 26 May seeking staggered payment elicited no reply, she filed the writ petition.
Secrets of HUF Formation & Taxation – Strengthen Your Legacy Today! Click here
Central to the dispute is Section 80 of the CGST Act, 2017, which empowers the Commissioner to allow dues to be discharged in up to 24 monthly instalments, subject to interest. Citing that clause, the judge held that the petitioner’s representation “deserves a reasoned decision” before any drastic measures—such as bank garnishee or property attachment—are taken.
Deputy Solicitor-General Marto Kato, appearing for the Union Ministry of Finance, and standing counsel M.K. Boro for the CGST Commissionerate, said they had no objection to such limited relief.
“The respondents shall dispose of the representation dated 26-05-2025 within three weeks, keeping in mind Section 80 and the petitioner’s financial liability,” the court ordered, adding that no coercive step may be taken in the meantime. The petitioner must serve a certified copy of the order to the department within seven days to trigger the timeline.
The instalment facility in Section 80 is more than a dead letter. Even a 24-instalment schedule would translate into payments of roughly ₹33 lakh a month in Daniam’s case—a burden many micro-enterprises would still find steep. Justice Phukan left the exact terms to the Commissioner’s judgment, provided a speaking order is issued.
Secrets of HUF Formation & Taxation – Strengthen Your Legacy Today! Click here
For the Goods and Services Tax department, the decision spotlights the absence of clear administrative guidelines on Section 80, eight years into the GST era. For the petitioner, the immediate win is immunity from sudden recovery, safeguarding working capital.
The petition was argued by advocate R.S. Mishra, who stressed that Section 80 obliges the Commissioner to record reasons when granting—or refusing—instalments. The judge also noted that the proviso to the section automatically restores the entire liability if any instalment is missed, ensuring revenue protection even while hardship is accommodated.
A refusal without cogent grounds could send the matter back to court and reignite debate over balancing revenue collection with economic reality—especially in India’s North-East, where liquidity constraints remain acute.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
