Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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