Helmet House vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Helmet House, represented by its Proprietor Kumba Sundram Jeyaram, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders dated 22.05.2023 and 23.05.2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Madurai. These orders pertained to the tax period of February 2022-23. The petitioner had filed GSTR-01 on 25.03.2023 after receiving a notice in GSTR-3A on the same date. While the petitioner declared a difference in supply in GSTR-01, they failed to file GSTR-3B on time. Consequently, an assessment order under Section 62(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017, was passed. The petitioner subsequently filed GSTR-3B on 02.07.2023.
Held
The Court held that the delay in filing the GSTR-3B Return on 02.07.2023 is liable to be condoned. This condonation is a consequence of the amendment to Section 62(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which has also been incorporated into the TNGST Act, 2017. As a result of this condonation, the impugned assessment order passed under Section 62(1) dated 22.05.2023 is to be deemed withdrawn. The Court clarified that this exercise would be without prejudice to the rights of the revenue to recover any tax due, interest payable under Section 50, or late fee payable under Section 47. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The ratio decidendi is that amendments to procedural provisions, particularly those extending timelines for rectifying omissions, should be given effect to, even if the original assessment order was passed prior to the amendment, provided the conditions for withdrawal of the assessment order are met.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the GSTR-3B Return on 02.07.2023, beyond the initial 30-day period stipulated in Section 62 of the GST enactments, can be condoned in light of the subsequent amendment to Section 62(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which was also carried out in the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing GSTR-3B should be condoned. They relied on the amendment to Section 62(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which extended the period for filing the return to 60 days, effective from 01.10.2023, as per Finance Act No.8/2023 and Notification No.28/2023-Central Tax. They contended that this amendment should be applied to their case. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the amendment was not in force during the disputed period, and therefore, retrospective benefit could not be granted. They also contended that the petitioner had slept over its rights by not filing an appeal in time, citing the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur.
Sections Cited
Section 62(1), Section 62(2), Section 50, Section 47
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The petitioner is before this Court against the following impugned orders: S.No Date Order/Notice 1. 22.05.2023 Best of Judgement Order under Section 62(1) of TNGST Act, 2017 2. 23.05.2023 Form GST ASMT 13 3. 23.05.2023 Form GST DRC 07
The petitioner had filed the Returns in GSTR 01 on 25.03.2023 after the petitioner received a notice in GSTR 3A on the same date. In GSTR 01 the petitioner declined the difference in supply, however, the petitioner failed to file GSTR 3B in time. Therefore, based on the Returns filed by the petitioner in GSTR 01 on 25.03.2023, assessment order was passed under Section 62(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017 on 22.05.2023. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has thereafter filed the Returns in GSTR 3B on 02.07.2023. As per the scheme in Section 62 of the respective GST enactments, such Return can be filed within a period of 30 days, in which case, the assessment order passed under Section 62 shall be deemed to have been 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis withdrawn, but, the liability for payment of interest under Sub-Section 1 of Section 50 or the payment of late fee under Section 47 would continue.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that with effect from 01.10.2023, the period was also extended, wherein, it has been extended to 60 days in terms of Finance Act No.8/2023 dated 31.03.2023 with effect from 01.10.2023 vide Notification No.28/2023-Central Tax dated 31.07.2023. 5. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that during the period in dispute, the above amendment was not in force and therefore, retrospective benefit cannot be given to the petitioner.
That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has slept over its rights by non filing of an Appeal in time and therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Having considered the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent and in the light of the amendment to Section 62(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which amendment has also been carried out in the TNGST Act, 2017, the Court is inclined to conclude that the delay in filing the GSTR 3B Return on 02.07.2023 is liable to be condoned as a consequence of which the impugned assessment order passed under Section 62(1) dated 22.05.2023 is to be deemed to have been withdrawn.
Needless to state, this exercise shall be carried on without prejudice to the rights of the revenue to recover the tax due, if there is any shortage to the interest payable by the petitioner and late fee payable under Section 47 of the respective GST enactments. This Writ Petition stands allowed with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 02.08.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Tamil Sangam Circle, Madurai – 625 020. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.