Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras 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