Court condones delay in filing GSTR-3B, considering Amendment in Section 62(2) relating to extension for filing GSTR 3B from 30 days to 60 days
Facts of the Case: The petitioner filed the GSTR 01 on 25.03.2023, after receiving a notice in GSTR 3A on the same day, denying the discrepancies in supply. However, the petitioner failed to file GSTR 3B on time, leading to an assessment order under Section 62(1) on 22.05.2023 based on GSTR 01 filings.
The petitioner filed GSTR 3B on 02.07.2023. According to Section 62 of the GST Acts, if returns are filed within 30 days, the assessment order passed under Section 62(1) should be deemed withdrawn. However, the petitioner missed this 30-day window. The Finance Act No. 8/2023, which came into force on 01.10.2023, extended the time limit for filing returns to 60 days. The petitioner sought relief under this amendment.
Submissions of Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the amendment allowing a 60-day period should apply to its case, thus making the late filing of GSTR 3B acceptable and deeming the assessment order as withdrawn.
Submission of department: The respondent contended that the amendment extending the period to 60 days was not in effect at the time of the default (March 2023) and therefore should not apply retrospectively. Moreover, the petitioner did not appeal the assessment within the time limits and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008) 3 SCC 70, arguing that retrospective relief cannot be granted.
Held that: The Court took note of the amendment to Section 62(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which was also reflected in the TNGST Act, 2017, and extended the period for filing GSTR 3B from 30 days to 60 days. Since the amendment was in effect from 01.10.2023, the Court ruled that the delay in filing GSTR 3B on 02.07.2023 could be condoned.
As a result of the condonation of delay, the Best of Judgment Order dated 22.05.2023 under Section 62(1) is deemed to have been withdrawn, and the assessment would not stand due to the petitioner's compliance with the return filing (GSTR 3B).
The Court clarified that this decision does not prevent the revenue authorities from recovering any shortage in tax, interest, or late fees as per Sections 50(1) and 47 of the GST enactments, should the petitioner still owe amounts under those provisions.
To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 1921
