Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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