Maha Kali Distributors PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through The Secretary

Held

The Court noted that the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Purnea Division, Purnea, had admitted the appeal application and passed an order on August 17, 2021. In this order, the tax liability in Demand DRC-07 was completely set aside, and the interest amount for delayed filing of GSTR-3B was reduced. Specifically, the interest amount in Demand Note DRC-07, initially Rs. 61,840.00 in CGST and Rs. 61,840.00 in SGST, was reduced to Rs. 46,791.00 in CGST and Rs. 46,791.00 in SGST. In light of this development, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not intend to press the petition further. The Court, therefore, disposed of the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Maha Kali Distributors Pvt. Ltd., challenged orders related to GST demands. Initially, Respondent No. 4 imposed tax for non-filing of GSTR-3B under Section 62 of the Bihar GST Act, 2017, issuing DRC-07. The petitioner argued that as per Rule 142(7), DRC-07 should be rectified and tax not imposed if the return is filed within 30 days. The petitioner claimed to have filed the return, and Respondent No. 3 issued a revised DRC-08 on October 21, 2019, acknowledging the filing but failing to rectify the tax calculation. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 issued another DRC-08 on December 2, 2019, which the petitioner alleged erroneously retained the original tax amount. An appeal against this was dismissed by the appellate authority on grounds of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tax demand imposed under Section 62 of the Bihar GST Act, 2017, for non-filing of GSTR-3B was erroneous, considering the petitioner filed the return within the stipulated period under Rule 142(7)? (Petitioner's contention: The tax demand was erroneous as the return was filed within 30 days of DRC-07 issuance, necessitating rectification under Rule 142(7). Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.) 2. Whether the DRC-08 dated December 2, 2019, issued by Respondent No. 4, which allegedly failed to correct the tax amount, was liable to be quashed? (Petitioner's contention: The DRC-08 erroneously did not change the tax amount. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.) 3. Whether the appeal filed before the appellate authority was wrongly dismissed on the ground of limitation? (Petitioner's contention: The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.)