Tvl Manavalakurichy Ire Manalalai Oppantha Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Manavalakurichy Ire Manalalai Oppantha Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. This order pertains to the assessment year 2018-19 and denied the petitioner's refund of excess tax coercively recovered from their bank account. The petitioner contends that discrepancies in uploading information in GSTR-1 for the tax period 2018-19 led to excess tax payment, which was subsequently corrected in GSTR-3B and GSTR-9. The respondent rejected the refund claim because the GSTR-9 return was filed on 22.04.2023, after the due date of 31.12.2020. This is the second round of litigation, with a previous order on 20.03.2023 having been quashed by this Court on 06.01.2025.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner appears to have made out a case for refund if the amount was indeed paid in excess due to discrepancies in GSTR-1, which were subsequently corrected in GSTR-3B and GSTR-9. The Court referenced an advisory from GSTN stating that returns would be barred for filing after the expiry of three years from the due date, with this restriction to be implemented from July 2025. However, the Court found that the matter required detailed consideration by the Appellate Commissioner. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within thirty days of receiving the order. The Appellate Commissioner was directed to consider the appeal on merits within two months thereafter. All issues were left open for canvas before the Appellate Commissioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the refund claim itself but remanded the matter for a detailed examination.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess tax paid for the assessment year 2018-19, considering the discrepancies in GSTR-1 were corrected in subsequent returns (GSTR-3B and GSTR-9)? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and the interpretation of tax filings). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of excess tax paid after deducting amounts confirmed earlier. They submitted that mistakes in uploading information in GSTR-1 for 2018-19 were rectified in GSTR-3B and reiterated in GSTR-9. The coercive recovery of tax, interest, and penalty was based on these initial discrepancies, and the amount recovered was indeed in excess. They relied on the advisory from GSTN regarding the three-year period for filing returns, implying their GSTR-9 filing was within a permissible timeframe for correction. Respondent's arguments: The respondent rejected the refund claim based on the petitioner filing their GSTR-9 return on 22.04.2023, which was after the due date of 31.12.2020, as per the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 56
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and rep. by itsP.Suyambu.
This Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner had suffered an adverse order on 20.03.2023, which was successfully challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.30824 of 2024, which was quashed vide order, dated 06.01.2025 of this Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Writ Court in the above case, the petitioner was issued with the notice dated 08.02.2025, which was also replied back by the petitioner on 17.02.2025. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is indeed entitled to refund of the tax paid in excess, after deducting the amount that was earlier confirmed on 20.03.2023. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a mistake while uploading relevant information in GSTR 1 for the tax period 2018-19. 5. It is submitted that though there was certain duplications, while filing the monthly return in GSTR 3B, the petitioner corrected the mistakes and paid the correct tax on the outward supply meant during 2018-19, which was also again reiterated and mistaken in GSTR 1 and also corrected in the annual return filed in GSTR 9 dated 22.04.2023. The respondent has however proceeded to issue notice in DRC 01 dated 05.01.2023, which culminated in the order dated 20.03.2023 pursuant to which the petitioner has paid tax, interest and penalty.
It is submitted that the amount was recovered from the petitioner’s bank account. It is further submitted that the respondent is duty bound to refund the amount, as the amount was paid in excess. Only reason stated in the impugned 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis order that the last date for filing return in GSTR 9 expired on 31.12.2020 and since the return was filed in GSTR 9 dated 22.04.2023, the claim for refund was rejected.
Prima facie, the petitioner appears to have made out a case for refund, if the amount was paid in excess on account of the discrepancies in the informations uploaded by the petitioner in GSTR 1, which according to the petitioner stood corrected in GSTR 3B and in GSTR 9 in view of the Advisory Team of GSTN, wherein it has been stated as under: “As per the Finance Act.2023 (8 of 2023), dt. 31-03-2023, implemented we.f 01-10-2023 vide Notification No. 28/2023 Central Tax dated 11th July, 2023, the taxpayers shall not be allowed file their GST return after the expiry of a period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said return under Section 37 (Outward Supply), Section 39 (payment of liability), Section 44 (Annual Return) and Section 52 (Tax Collected at Source). These Sections cover GSTR-1, GSTR 3B, GSTR-4, GSTR-5, GSTR-5A. GSTR-6, GSTR 7, GSTR 8 and GSTR 9. Hence, above mentioned returns will be barred for filing after expiry of three years. The said restriction will be implemented on the GST portal from July 2025 Tax period. Hence, the taxpayers are once again advised to reconcile their records and file their GST Returns as soon as possible if not filed till now.” 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
However, the matter would require a detailed consideration by the Appellate Commissioner. Considering the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal challenging the impugned order, dated 16.04.2025 before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, who shall consider the same and dispose of the same on merits within a period of two (2) months thereafter. All the issues are left open to canvas before the Appellate Commissioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 28.08.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd To The State Tax Officer, Thuckalay - 2 at Nagercoil Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Buildings, Nagercoil. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2025 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.