P Senthil Kumar vs. The State Tax Officer (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, P. Senthil Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (ST), Tuticorin II Assessment Circle, under Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017. This order followed a notice in GSTR 3A dated 28.12.2023. The petitioner admitted to failing to file the monthly return in GSTR 3B for November 2023 on time. Unaware of the impugned order, the petitioner subsequently filed the GSTR 3B return on 30.05.2024. The petitioner argued that as per Section 62 of the GST Act, if a return is filed belatedly, the order is deemed withdrawn, and therefore, the impugned order should be quashed.
Held
The Court held that the rigors of sub-section 2 to Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017, need not be strictly pressed against the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the Department's intention is to ensure statutory compliance, and as long as the dealer complies and pays the necessary late fee charges, the objective is met. Consequently, the delay in filing the GSTR 3B return on 30.05.2024, despite being beyond 30 days from the impugned order dated 30.01.2024, was deemed to have been condoned. The petitioner was directed to pay the late fee as per Section 47 of the GST Act, 2017. The respondent was permitted to independently assess the returns filed by the petitioner and initiate appropriate proceedings if there was any shortfall in tax payment. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the belated filing of the GSTR 3B return on 30.05.2024, which is beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017, would render the provision of Section 62(2) inapplicable to the petitioner, as argued by the respondent. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017, provides that if a return is filed belatedly, the order passed under that section is deemed to have been withdrawn, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the return was filed on 30.05.2024, which is beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 62(2) of the Act, and thus, the petitioner cannot take refuge under Section 62(2).
Sections Cited
Section 62, Section 62(2), Section 47
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the respondent under Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017. 2.The impugned order has preceded a notice in GSTR 3A dated 28.12.2023. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a small time dealer and had failed to notice the same. It is submitted that the petitioner admits that the petitioner had failed to file the monthly return in GSTR 3B in time for the month of November, 2023. 3.It is submitted that unaware of the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the return in Form GSTR 3B on 30.05.2024. It is submitted that in view of Section 62 of the respective GST Act, in case returns are filed belatedly, the order is deemed to have been withdrawn. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was issued with a notice in GSTR 3A 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis dated 28.12.2023 and an order came to be passed on 30.01.2024. The return was filed only on 30.05.2024, which is beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 62(2) of the Act and therefore, the provision under Section 62(2) of the respective GST Act will not come to rescue the petitioner. 5.Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, I am of the view that the rigors of sub section 2 to section 62 of the respective GST Act need not be pressed against the petitioner, as the intention of the Department is only to ensure the statutory compliance as long as the dealer complies with the same and pays the necessary late fee charges. 6.Under these circumstances, the delay in filing the returns in GSTR 3B on 30.05.2024 although beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 is deemed to have been condoned. Suffice to state that the petitioner shall pay the late fee as per Section 47 of the GST Act, 2017. The respondent may thereafter independently proceed to assess the returns filed by the petitioner and if there is any shortfall in payment of tax, appropriate proceedings 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis may be initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the respective GST Act, 2017. 7.The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 01.08.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To The State Tax Officer (ST), Tuticorin II Assessment Circle, Tuticorin District. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
2024 5/5 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.