1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief :

“It is prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring –

(a) that the proviso to Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 inserted by Section 100 of Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 applies retrospectively from 01.07.2017 and consequently, set aside the demand notice dated 07.02.2020 for the months July and August, 2017 issued by the 1^st Respondent demanding interest under the pre-amended Section 50 of the CGST Act;

(b) declare that the summary levy and demand of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act which is not preceded by an adjudication as per Section 73 of the CGST Act determining the principal amount payable is illegal and contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act 2Ol7 and principles of natural justice; and

(c) alternatively, declare that Section 50 (1) of the CGST Act insofar as it seeks to levy interest on the gross tax liability without duly reducing the input tax credit available to the registered person under the CGST Act as being illegal, confiscatory and contrary to the fundamentals of the levy of interest, a colourable exercise to levy penalty in the guise of interest and strike down Section 50(1) to such extent as being unconstitutional.”

2. Perusal of the notice issued on 7.2.2020 indicates that the petitioner has filed GST returns belatedly for the period from July, 2017 to March, 2018, therefore, the petitioner is requested to pay interest liability for all the returns filed after due date since July, 2017, within 15 days. The said notice further indicates that in case of failure to pay the interest, further necessary action to recover such interest amount will be taken under relevant provisions of the Act/Acts and rules made therein. The petitioner has filed reply to the said notice on 21.2.2020 stating that the reason for submission of the delayed returns is not due to inaction on the part of the petitioner, but it is a technical fault of the department, for which, the interest cannot be demanded, more particularly when the amount has already been deposited in Electronic Cash Ledger. It is contended by the petitioner that subsequent returns through on-line are not acceptable until the returns of previous months have been uploaded on the specified date and in such circumstances, demand for payment of interest for the fault of the department is not proper, therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

3. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the reply dated 21.2.2020 to the notice dated 7.2.2020, it is suffice to direct respondent No.1 to consider the reply and all the relevant facts as narrated therein, affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case, the 1^st respondent is of the opinion that compliance has not been made by the petitioner properly, appropriate reasoned order may be passed affording opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Till then, adverse order, if any passed against the petitioner, shall not be given effect to.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.