TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Amnesty Scheme Benefits Extend to Taxpayers Who Filed Returns Before the Commencement of the Scheme: Kerala High Court Rules on Late Fee for GST Returns

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court in a significant decision has ruled that the benefits of the GST Amnesty Scheme should extend to taxpayers who had filed their GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C returns before the commencement of the scheme. The court held that the late fee demands for the belated filing of GSTR-9C are unjust and unsustainable.

Facts and Issues Arising in the Judgement: The batch of writ petitions involved common questions of fact and law, focusing on the interpretation and applicability of late fees for belated filing of annual GST returns in FORM GSTR-9 and reconciliation statements in FORM GSTR-9C. Petitioners had filed GSTR-9 returns belatedly and paid late fees as mandated by Section 47 of the CGST/SGST Acts. A contention arose regarding the applicability of the GST Amnesty Scheme to these petitioners, who had filed their returns before the scheme’s introduction.

GST Amnesty Scheme’s Applicability: The court observed that the scheme was intended to reduce compliance burdens and legal disputes, stating, “GST Amnesty Scheme aimed at reducing compliance burden and legal disputes – Applicable to taxpayers who filed GSTR-9 belatedly before commencement of scheme.”

Unsustainability of Late Fee Demands: The court held that the late fee demands for the belated filing of GSTR-9C were unjust and unsustainable. It was noted that “Late fee demands for belated filing of GSTR-9C held unjust and unsustainable.”

Directions on Late Fee Collection: The court issued directions to cease the collection of late fees for the delay in filing GSTR-9C, subject to the non-refundability of any late fee already paid over Rs. 10,000.

Non-Refundability of Paid Late Fees: While allowing the writ petitions, the court clarified that petitioners are not entitled to a refund of the late fee already paid over Rs. 10,000.

Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The court directed the cessation of notices seeking late fee for the delay in filing GSTR-9C, provided that any late fee already paid over Rs. 10,000 will not be refundable.

 Date of Decision: 9th April 2024

Anishia Chandrakanth vs Superintendent of Central Tax

 

Latest Legal News