Siva Vinayaga Stores vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Siva Vinayaga Stores, represented by its partner G. Vijaya Sekaran, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Pattukottai II Assessment Circle. The impugned order confirmed a demand proposed in a prior notice. The petitioner contended that due to illness, they could not file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within the stipulated time, making it time-barred. The petitioner stated that they intended to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. The core of the dispute arose from a mistake in the GSTR 1 return for March 2022, where the petitioner declared a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,40,14,297/- instead of the actual Rs. 48,61,294/-. This discrepancy, including a sum of Rs. 55,53,003/- pertaining to February 2022 turnover, led to the demand. The petitioner claimed to have rectified this error in GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns, which they alleged were not considered by the respondent.
Held
The Court decided to grant the petitioner a fresh opportunity to explain the discrepancies. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding illness preventing a timely appeal and the undertaking to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. The Court reasoned that the petitioner should be allowed to explain the reconciliation issues between GSTR 1, GSTR 3B, and GSTR 9 returns, as well as the return for February 2022 in GSTR 1. The impugned order was to be treated as a corrigendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the 10% deposit of the disputed tax. Upon compliance, the respondent was to consider the reply and pass a fresh order on merits within 45 days. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary finding was that the petitioner deserved a chance to present their case fully due to the circumstances presented.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.08.2023, confirming the demand, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the petitioner was unable to file a timely statutory appeal due to illness and that the discrepancy in turnover declaration was a bona fide mistake rectified in subsequent returns? The petitioner argued that their inability to file a timely appeal was due to illness, rendering the appeal time-barred. They further contended that the turnover discrepancy in GSTR 1 for March 2022 was an error, which they had subsequently corrected in GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns. They relied on the principle that genuine mistakes should be allowed to be rectified and that the impugned order was passed without considering these rectifications. The respondent argued that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed because the petitioner had not amended the GSTR 1 return where the alleged mistake occurred. They also contended that the petitioner failed to substantiate how the difference of Rs. 55,53,003/- arose and how it pertained to February 2022 turnover, and that the petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for reconciling the amounts in GSTR 9.
Sections Cited
GSTR 1, GSTR 3B, GSTR 9
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 by the respondent in his proceeding bearing reference No.GSTIN : 33AEDFS8364L1ZK/2021-22 dated 30.08.2023. 2. By the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the demand proposed in the notice that preceded to the impugned order.
The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was ill and therefore, failed to file Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Commissioner and therefore, at this stage, an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner would be time barred. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. The statement of the petitioner stands recorded.
Further, the case of the petitioner is that in the Return filed in GSTR 1 for the month of March 2022, by mistake, the petitioner had declared the taxable turnover as Rs.1,40,14,297/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Seven only) as against the actual taxable turnover of 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rs.48,61,294/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Four only). It is submitted that a part of turnover for the month of February 2022 i.e., a sum of Rs.55,53,003/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand and Three only) was added and thus, the demand was proposed in the notice, which preceded to the impugned order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has rectified the mistake in the Return filed in GSTR 3B and also in GSTR 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that without considering the same, the respondent has passed the impugned order.
The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner has not amended GSTR1, where the petitioner had committed the alleged mistake by declaring the monthly turnover for the month of March 2022 as Rs.1,40,14,297/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Seven only). 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The dispute is on account of reconciliation of the amounts maintained by the petitioner and the returns filed by the petitioner in GSTR 1, GSTR 3B and GSTR 9. The petitioner has failed to substantiate how the difference for a sum of Rs.55,53,003/- came to be added and how the aforesaid turnover actually pertained to the part of the turnover to the month of February 2022. The petitioner has failed to reply by stating that the petitioner has reconciled the amount in the GSTR 9. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner can be given a fresh opportunity to explain the discrepancies between returns in GSTR 1, GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 together with the Return filed for the month of February 2022 in GSTR 1. 9. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as corrigendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner shall file the said reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, together with a deposit of 10% of disputed tax.
On such deposit being made and the reply being filed within 30 days 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis time, the respondent shall consider and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with law, preferably within the period of 45 days thereafter.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 23.04.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The State Tax Officer Pattukottai II Assessment Circle, CT Buildings, Pattukottai, Thanjavur. 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.