Sri Beeragondanahalli Halagappa Somashekarappa vs. The State Of Karnataka

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) “Issue a Writ Certiorari, or such other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari, quashing 3(Three) Orders in Original passed by Respondent No.2 under Section 62 Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 207 dated 16.05.2023 Annexure-B1 VIDE Reference No. TRNO.22-23/LGSTO-220 for tax period Mar-23. 03.07.2023 Annexure –B2 vide Reference No. TRNO-22-23/LGSTO-220 for tax period Apr-203) and 14.07.2023 9AnnexureB3 vide illegal, arbitrary and extra-legislative. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24038 b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or such other Writ, Order or direction, as this Honourable Court may deem fit, as consequential relief, directing Respondent No. 2 to refund the amount of pre-deposits 012 made while filing 3 (Three) Appeals filed under section 107(1) Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 in Form APL- 01 on dates 12.01.2024 (Annexure F1 vide APL-01 Reference No. AD290124016680C for tax period Mar- 23), 14.12.2023 (Annexure F2 vide Reference No. NULL for tax period Apr-23) and 12.01.2024 (Annexure F3 vide APL-01 Reference No. AD2901240167264 for tax period May-23); and c) Pass such other or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity, including the costs of this writ petition.

The petitioner is a civil contractor and a sole proprietorship carrying on the business of work contract services. The petitioner did not file GSTR-3B on time for the months of March-2023, April-2023, and May-2023. It is in pursuance thereto that proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 46 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KGST Act’ for short) on 28.04.2023, 26.05.2023 and 25.06.2023 respectively, by way of email. The petitioner claims that the petitioner is not aware of the said notices, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24038 but subsequently the petitioner filed GSTR-3B on 09.08.2023 for the month of March, 2023; 07.10.2023 for the month of April, 2023; and 09.10.2023 for the month of May, 2023. 3. In the meanwhile, the Authorities had passed an order under Section 62 of the KGST Act in respect of March-2023 on 16.05.2023; in respect of April-2023 on 13.06.2023; and in respect of May-2023 on 14.07.2023, causing a demand by taking into account the last six months transactions on a best-judgment assessment basis, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 10.10.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal in terms of Section 107(6) of the KGST Act, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2023. 4. A rectification application under Section 161 of the KGST Act had been filed on 03.01.2024, and the same came to be withdrawn and first appeal came to be filed before respondent No.3 on 12.01.2024 for all HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24038 the aforesaid three months. Notice of the said appeals having been issued, respondents had entered appearance, and the appeals finally came to be rejected. It is challenging the said order that the petitioner is before this court.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is suffering from financial stringency and there being a loss in business inasmuch as no business has been conducted for the month of April, 2023, and the returns could not be filed. The petitioner, in order to establish the bonafide, has filed the returns belatedly as indicated above. In this regard, by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of HELMET HOUSE V. DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-1, MADURAI1, more particularly para 7, he submits that the subsequent amendment carried out in respect of Section 62 by the Finance Act, 2023, which 1 (2024) 167 TAXMANN.COM 81 (MADRAS) HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24038 came into effect from 01.10.2023, is required to be given benefit of to the petitioner. Inasmuch as by way of the amendment valid returns could be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of service of the assessment order under Sub-Section (1) of Section 62 of the KGST Act. A further period of 60 days is provided for by way of amendment by making payment of an additional late fee of Rs.100/- of each day delay beyond the period of 60 days of the service of the said assessment order, thereby providing a period of 120 days, the second 60 days being subject to payment of Rs.100/- for each day of delay.

In the present matter, it is submitted that the assessment order was passed on 16.05.2023 for the month of March, 2023, the petitioner had a time of 120 days thereafter. The returns having been filed on 09.08.2023 is within the said time period. Insofar as the returns for the month of April, 2023, the assessment order having been issued on 13.06.2023 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24038 and the returns having been filed on 07.10.2023 are also within the said period of 120 days. Similarly, the submission made as regard the month of May, 2023, the assessment order having been issued on 14.07.2023 and the returns having been filed on 09.10.2023 are within a period of 120 days.

Taking into consideration the said facts, he submits that the above petition is to be allowed and the reliefs be granted as the petitioner is willing to pay the due payment to the respondents.

Sri K. Hemakumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents would submit that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2023, came into effect on 01.10.2023 and is prospective in nature, would not apply to the tax period for the months of March to May, 2023, which is prior to the amendment coming into force on 01.10.2023. His submission is that as of the date on which the assessment order was passed, as well as the other impugned order in the appeal, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24038 there is no provision that enables the concerned Authorities to condone the delay and accept the delay filing, since prior to the amendment, the returns had to be filed within a period of 30 days and not thereafter.

Heard Sri Ganesh Vishwanath Shandage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.Hemakumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents and perused the papers.

A short question that would arise for consideration is: “Whether the returns to be filed under GSTR- 3B/KGST Act prior to the amendment (vide Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 01.10.2023), if filed belatedly, the delay would be condoned by applying the amendment that came into effect from 01.10.2023?”

The Hon’ble Madras High Court has considered this aspect in the decision of Helmet House’s case referred to supra in para 7 and has come to the conclusion that the amendment being a beneficial amendment providing an additional period of time for HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24038 the assessee to file returns in GSTR-3B. The benefit of the same is to be provided to the assessee, if any delay can be condoned in terms of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2023. 12. The findings of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid decision would be equally applicable to the present matter inasmuch as in the present case also the petitioner had filed his GSTR-3B returns, though belatedly, but nevertheless the same has been filed.

Taking into consideration the said amendment, for the first 60 days from the date of order in original, there would be no requirement for making any late fee, however, after the period of 60 days, petitioner would be required to make a payment in the sum of Rs.100/- for each day of delay beyond the first 60 days.

In that view of the matter, I pass the following: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24038 ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) Respondents are directed to accept the returns filed as afore indicated. c) It is needless to say that the orders in the original would stand withdrawn in pursuance of such acceptance. d) The matter is remitted to the second respondent to assess the late fee, which is required to be paid by the petitioner, and pass the necessary order thereon within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. e) The petitioner is required to make payment of the said late fee within a period of 30 days of such assessment being made by respondent No. 2. (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE