The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad vide its order dated 23.02.2023 in the matter of Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Anne Sandeep, Project Director Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others in Writ Tax No. 4 of 2022, directed the respondents to adjust the amount of GST which could not be deposited in the relevant financial year, and was deposited in the subsequent financial year.  It was found that both, the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority have committed the misreading of GSTR-9.

The Petitioner filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the order dated 04.06.2021 passed under Section 61 and Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and also the order dated 26.10.2021, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.  Further, directions were sought to the respondents to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioner in the financial year 2018-19, which inadvertently could not be deposited in 2017-18, in accordance with the circular dated 31.12.2018 as well as Section 39(9) of the GST Act, but deposited in the month of June 2018 i.e., financial year 2018-19.

Facts of the Case: – That a notice dated 23.06.2020 was issued to the petitioner under Section 61 of the Act, alleging that in the annual return filed in form GSTR-09 dated 30.01.2020, the petitioner has shown its turnover as 129.52 lakhs which does not tally with his Bank Statement.

It was submitted on the behalf of the petitioner that very basis of the notice is wrong insofar as in GSTR-9, the turnover of 129.52 lakhs is shown only with regard to supply made to unregistered persons i.e., under B2C category.  It seems that the concerned authority has failed to take into consideration the entire form which at its end shows a total turnover of Rs.20,37,13,502.00 lakhs through GSTR-9 in the financial year 2017-18.

On the other hand, the above fact that the GSTR -9 dated 30.01.2020 is the only GSTR-9 form submitted by the petitioner as well as the figures provided therein, could not be disputed on the behalf of the respondents.

Held: – The Hon’ble Court after considering the submissions made & facts of the case, found that both, the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority have committed the said misreading of GSTR – 9.  Hence, both the impugned orders cannot sustain and are set aside.

The Hon’ble Court with the above findings, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders with a direction to the respondents to adjust the amount of GST deposited by the petitioner.  The security amount deposited under the interim order is released in favour of the petitioner.


Free Trial

Are you looking for the Latest Rules, Notifications, and Case Laws?

Book your 7 days free trial

Book Now