Sunil Parashar vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sunil Parashar, filed a writ petition before the High Court aggrieved by the respondents' demand for payment of late fees for filing GST returns following the restoration of his registration by the appellate authority. The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities were demanding Rs. 10,000/- per return for the relevant periods. He had already paid Rs. 21,000/- as late fees for some periods, enabling him to file those returns. However, for the remaining periods, the authorities were demanding further payments without legal basis. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in a similar matter.
Held
The Court held that the respondent CGST authorities could not demand further late fees from the petitioner for filing the GST returns for the relevant periods. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, the submissions of the parties, and crucially, the Division Bench judgment in M/s. Modicum Enterprise (OPC) Private Limited. The reasoning was that the Division Bench had already ruled against demanding late fees in similar situations where registration was restored. The ratio decidendi is that once registration is restored, and in light of precedent, the authorities should facilitate the filing of returns without imposing further unjustified late fees. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to file the returns in question relating to the relevant period without payment of any further late fee, within three weeks from the date of the order, by facilitating the filing process. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities can demand further late fees from the petitioner for filing GST returns for the relevant periods after his registration has been restored by the appellate authority, and whether such demand is legally sustainable. The petitioner argued that the demand for further late fees was without authority of law, especially after he had already paid a substantial amount and had his registration restored. He relied on the Division Bench judgment in M/s. Modicum Enterprise (OPC) Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax/ Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Shibpur Charge & Ors., which directed the respondents not to demand any late fee for filing returns and to facilitate the filing process. The respondents, represented by Mr. Maiti, could not justify the action of demanding further payment. He fairly conceded that in light of the Division Bench judgment, the authorities could not insist on the demanded amount for allowing the petitioner to file the returns.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 PB Sl. No.
WPA 16830 of 2023 Sunil Parashar Vs The Union of India & Ors. Mr. Rohan Raj. … For the Petitioner. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal. …..for the State. Mr. K. K. Maiti, Mr. U.S. Bhattacharya, Ms. Aishwarya Rajashree. ……for the CGST authority. Mr. Tilak Mitra, Mr. Arunava Ganguly, …….for the UOI. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in asking the petitioner for making payment of late fee in filing the return in consequence of restoration of its registration by the order of the appellate authority concerned. Petitioner submits that the respondent authorities concerned is asking the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- for filing each return for the relevant period. Petitioner submits that petitioner has already paid Rs.21,000/- as a late fee and upon payment of 2 the same for some of the periods petitioner has been allowed to file return but for the remaining period they are asking again for payment if the huge amount without any authority of law. Learned advocate for the petitioner in support of his contention relies on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Modicum Enterprise (OPC) Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax/ Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Shibpur Charge & Ors. in MAT No.1828 of 2022 and the relevant paragraphs 8 & 9 of the same are recorded as hereunder:- “This appeal and the connected application as well as the writ petition are disposed of by restraining the respondents from demanding any late fee from the appellant in respect of the returns, which they intend to file and to facilitate the process of filing the return, the nodal officer in the Goods and Services Tax Help Desk, Kolkata is directed to render necessary assistance so that the appellant will be able to file the return without the payment of late fee. This direction shall be complied with within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. Needless to state that on the ground of non-filing of the return, the respondent should not initiate fresh proceeding for cancellation of the registration.”
3 Mr. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not justify such action of the respondent authorities concerned in asking the petitioner for payment of further amount for allowing the petitioner to file the returns for the relevant period. He also fairly submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent authorities concerned cannot ask for the amount it has asked for allowing the petitioner to file the return in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties and the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent CGST authorities concerned to allow the petitioner to file the returns in question relating to the relevant period without payment of any late fee, within a period of three weeks from date by facilitating the process of filing the return. With this observation and direction, this writ petition being WPA 16830 of 2023 is disposed of. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
4
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.