District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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