Anishia Chandrakantha

VERSUS

THE SUPERINTENDENT,

Citation:  2024 taxo.online 768

In the case of Anishia Chandrakanth & Ors. v. The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, Audit Circle – 1 & Ors., the Kerala High Court, presided by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, addressed a batch of petitions related to the belated filing of annual returns under the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioners had filed their annual returns in Form GSTR-9 for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 after the prescribed due dates, along with the required late fees under Section 47 of the CGST Act. Despite this, the respondents demanded additional late fees, considering the filing date of the reconciliation statement in Form GSTR-9C as the actual return filing date.

The petitioners argued that GSTR-9C is merely a reconciliation statement, not a return as contemplated under Section 44 of the CGST Act, and thus late fees should not apply to it. The respondents contended that the Amnesty Scheme, which waives late fees for non-filers of GSTR-9 if filed after 01.04.2023, does not apply to those who had already filed their returns before this date.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including the original and amended versions of Section 44 and Section 35(5) of the CGST Act, and Rule 80 of the CGST Rules. The Finance Act, 2021, introduced significant changes effective from 01.08.2021, including the removal of mandatory certification of GSTR-9C by auditors for turnovers exceeding Rs. 5 crores, allowing for self-certification by taxpayers instead. It also noted that the GST portal does not support the payment of late fees for GSTR-9C.

The court emphasized that the purpose of the Amnesty Scheme is to provide relief to taxpayers for late filing of returns, and continuing to issue notices for non-payment of late fees for belated GSTR-9C filings before the scheme's commencement contradicts this intent. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the notices demanding late fees for delayed filing of GSTR-9C were unjust and unsustainable. It clarified that the Amnesty Scheme's benefit applies retrospectively, including cases where returns were filed before the scheme's implementation. However, the petitioners were not entitled to claim refunds for late fees already paid beyond the Rs. 10,000 waiver limit set by the scheme.

 The judgment underscores the court's recognition of the practical challenges faced by taxpayers during the initial stages of GST implementation and the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights the importance of interpreting statutory provisions and government schemes in a manner that aligns with their intended relief purposes. The decision also points out the discrepancies in the GST portal's functionality, which affects compliance and penalty mechanisms. By extending the Amnesty Scheme's benefits retrospectively, the court ensures fairness and consistency in applying tax relief measures, thereby supporting taxpayers who made efforts to comply with filing requirements despite delays. This ruling can serve as a precedent for similar cases, promoting a balanced approach between tax compliance and taxpayer relief.

 

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