ANKIT KUMAR AGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF BUSINESS NAMELY AMBIKA TRADING COMPANY

Versus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, TALTALA CHARGES & ORS.

Citation: 2024 taxo.online 1011

In the case of Ankit Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of Ambika Trading Company v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charges & Ors., the petitioner filed an intra-court appeal against the order dated 4th April 2024, which directed him to avail the statutory appellate remedy. The appeal was filed in response to the rejection of an adjudication order dated 15th December 2023. The primary issue was whether the annual return filed by the appellant in GSTR-9 for the financial year 2017-18 could be disregarded.

The petitioner had submitted GSTR-3B returns for the period from October 2017 to March 2018 without including both Input and Output Cess. GSTR-1 was filed for October 2017 without Cess, but Cess was included in GSTR-1 from November 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner had also provided statements detailing the Cess amounts for the officer’s consideration. Errors in the GSTR-3B returns were later identified by the petitioner, who then corrected them in the GSTR-9 filing, indicating that the missing output GST liability on Compensation Cess had been rectified.

The petitioner argued that the errors were unintentional, occurring during the initial implementation of GST when they were a small assessee. They emphasized that there was no revenue loss to the government as the entire exercise was revenue-neutral. However, the adjudicating authority declined the petitioner’s request to consider the corrections, citing that GSTR-3B was not rectified within the permitted time.

The court noted that the petitioner had filed GSTR-9 within the extended period allowed due to COVID-19 notifications. Ignoring the GSTR-9 would prejudice the assessee's rights. The court also acknowledged the petitioner’s argument that the errors were revenue-neutral and unintentional, with no loss to the government. Consequently, the court decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s submissions, provide a personal hearing, and examine the GSTR-9 filing before making a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing an opportunity for a personal hearing before making adverse decisions against taxpayers. It underscores the necessity of considering all relevant filings and submissions, ensuring that procedural fairness and justice are upheld. The decision reinforces that any administrative action must be consistent with the law and principles of natural justice.

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426