The Goods and Service Tax Act was passed by the Indian government on March 29, 2017, and it became effective on July 1 of that same year. There is only one domestic indirect tax law that is applicable nationwide, and it is called the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
A tax that is levied on both goods and services is known as the Goods and Services Tax (GST). In India, it is an indirect tax that has largely taken the place of other indirect taxes like VAT, service tax, excise duty, etc. This will improve process efficiency, lessen the likelihood of double taxation, and facilitate tax collection.
Thankfully, late or non-filed GST returns are not subject to any penalties under the GST law. For late return filing, the GST registered dealer is liable to late fees rather than a penalty. It is mandatory to pay any additional late fees by debiting the electronic cash ledger. Late fees cannot be paid with the Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The Madras High Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax (TNGST Act), 2017 as the GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of the return. The assessee argued that they had filed a return, in the absence of evidence to prove that the GST department cancelled the Registration.
A single judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that the petitioner engaged in Automobile spare parts. It was submitted that the petitioner has filed a return on 17.02.2023. However, there are no records to substantiate the same. “Be that as it may, the Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, within 30 days”, the Court held.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the acceptance of belated returns of the assessee by the department along with the late fee is not a valid ground to exonerate the assessee from the time limit for Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim under Section 16(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (APGST) Act and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
The bench emphasised that the acceptance of late returns does not exempt the petitioner from the requirements of Section 16(4) and the time limits for claiming ITC are well within the legislative framework. The court thus upholds the validity of the assessment order passed by the authorities.
The Orissa High Court, in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, has refused to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for reassessment when the assessee had failed to enrol in the common Goods and Services Tax (GST) Portal within the prescribed statutory time limit.
The appellant had also failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time limit, apart from the failure to enrol. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the demand raised by the authority under Annexures-7 and 8 series considering the payment made through statutory return form GSTR-3B under Annexure-5 series.
Dismissing the petition, the Division Bench of Justice B R Sarangi and Justice M S Raman observed that, “the assessment order is very clear that the petitioner has been issued with a provisional ID for enrolment on the common portal, but he has failed to enrol on the common portal.”
The Madras High Court allowed the assessee to file a GST return since the GST registration was cancelled on failure to file a GST return due to health issues.
The petitioners shall also pay GST and file the returns for the period after the cancellation of the registration by declaring the correct value of supplies and payment of GST shall also be in cash. If any Input Tax Credit was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approval by the respondents or any other competent authority. A Single judge bench comprising Justice P T Asha held “that the benefit extended by the Court in the earlier orders in Suguna Cutpiece Centre’s case may be extended to the Petitioner.”
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court has recently set aside the order cancelling the GST Registration of the petitioner-Raj Kishore Engineering Construction Pvt Ltd in the absence of a Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter was subsequently reversed to the First Appellate Authority.
The Single Bench of Justice M Sundar observed that, “The Appellate Authority should have given some dispositive reasoning on this aspect of the matter. The Appellate Authority should have gone into the reasons adduced by the writ petitioner – assessee regarding the belated filing of returns and should have returned a finding one way or the other.” and set aside the impugned order reversing the matter to the appellate authority to consider the matter on merits in accordance with law.
A division bench of the Orissa High Court has allowed the assessee to file GST returns prior to the cancellation of registration and directed the Government to make suitable changes on the portal for the same.
Allowing relief to the assessee, the Court held that the petitioner is permitted to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not already been filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and statutory payments and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of sixty days (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement, if it has not been already paid.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has permitted the businesses to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of GST Registration and make payment of tax dues along with interest. The Single Judge, while reiterating the order passed on 31st January this year, also advised the State to instruct GSTN to make necessary changes in the portal to facilitate these changes.
Justice Anita Sumanth was considering a bunch of writ petitions where the petitioners have missed several opportunities that were extended to them post-cancellation of the registrations by way of Amnesty Schemes wherein dealers were granted extension of time to take necessary steps to restore the cancelled registrations.
While allowing the Writ Petition, the Madras High Court has held that the GST Department could be levied interest only on the cash component of the tax remitted belatedly but not on ITC available.
The ruling was made by the bench composed of member Dr Justice Anita Sumanth in the case of M/s.Refex Industries Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise.
The Court observed that, As per Section 50(1) of the CGST Act interest shall be levied only on that part of the tax which is paid in cash, has been inserted with effect from 01.08.2019, but clearly seeks to correct an anomaly in the provision as it existed prior to such insertion. It should be read as clarificatory and operative retrospectively.
The Madras High Court ruled that the GST Authorities can not deny Revocation of GST Registration for alleged incorrect availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner, Ramakrishnan Mahalingam was issued a GST Registration Certificate on August 02, 2018, effective from July 1, 2017. A Show Cause Notice dated July 22, 2019, was issued to the Petitioner, by the State Tax Officer, GST calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the GST registration should not be cancelled
.since the Petitioner had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. Thereafter, the GST registration of the Petitioner was cancelled on September 16, 2019.
Thus, and these being the only conditions that are to be satisfied by the petitioner for grant of revocation of registration, the court opined that the cancellation of the registration, in this case, is incorrect and improper.
A two-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Deepak Roshan has quashed the demand of interest for the delay in filing GSTR-3B for the reason that the GST department has not initiated appropriate adjudication proceedings before confirming such demand.
“In the light of the discussions made herein above and for the reasons recorded, the impugned demand contained in letters dated 28th February 2020 / 2nd March 2020 (Annexure-4) is quashed. Liberty is left to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate adjudication proceedings and determine the liability of interest against the petitioner-assessee under the relevant applicable provisions Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, as the case may be, in accordance with law and after opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,” the bench held.
R.K. Transport Private Limited, Phusro, Bokaro Vs The Union of India through the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi.
In a recent ruling, the division bench of Delhi High Court (HC) presided by Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that from the date of the petitioner filing an application for revocation of its cancellation, he cannot be held responsible for not filing its returns during the period when the registration stood cancelled.
The issue in the current case concerns the imposition of a fine for filing GST returns after the deadline during the time the petitioner was prevented from doing so due to the revocation of its GSTIN registration. The bench observed that the order of the respondent authority rejecting the application of GSTIN registration is unsustainable as it does not provide any proper reason for the rejection.
In a recent decision the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the Time limit for filing Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 2017 (APGST Act) is not ultra vires the Constitution of India and mere acceptance of Form GSTR-3B returns will not release delay in filing ITC.
A Division Bench comprising Justices U Durga Prasad Rao and T Mallikarjuna Rao held that the time limit prescribed for claiming ITC under Section 16(4) of APGST Act/CGST Act, 2017 is not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Section 16(2) of APGST/CGST Act, 2017 has no overriding effect on Section 16(4) of the said Act as both are not contradictory with each other.
They will operate independently. The Court further went on to add that mere acceptance of Form GSTR-3B returns with late fee will not exonerate the delay in claiming ITC beyond the period specified U/s 16(4) of APGST/CGST Act, 2017.
The Madras High Court allowed the assessee to file a GST return since the GST registration was cancelled on failure to file a GST return due to health issues.
The petitioners shall also pay GST and file the returns for the period after the cancellation of the registration by declaring the correct value of supplies and payment of GST shall also be in cash. If any Input Tax Credit was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approval by the respondents or any other competent authority. A Single judge bench comprising Justice P T Asha held “that the benefit extended by the Court in the earlier orders in Suguna Cutpiece Centre’s case may be extended to the Petitioner.”
In a recent ruling, the Single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues of the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Additionally, in accordance with the instruction, the state counsel testified in court that the petitioner’s GST registration had been revoked because he had failed to file returns for GST for a period of six months.
The Madras High Court granted relief to the assessee, Tvl Marimuthu Venkateshwaran on cancellation of registration due to non-filing of GST Returns due to health issues.
A Single Bench consisting of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that “In view of the fact that this Court has been consistently following the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others and the Revenue or Department has also accepted the said view as evident from the fact that no appeal has been filed in any of the matters, this Court intends to follow the above order of this Court.”
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has permitted the businesses to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of GST Registration and make payment of tax dues along with interest. The Single Judge, while reiterating the order passed on 31st January this year, also advised the State to instruct GSTN to make necessary changes in the portal to facilitate these changes.
Observing that the State confirmed the directions as set out in order dated 31.01.2022 have been implemented in the case of all those petitioners, the Court held that “i. The petitioners are permitted to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
