Kerala High Court Quashes Order Demanding Late Fee For Delay In Filing GSTR-9C
The Kerala High Court has quashed the order demanding a late fee for delay in filing GSTR-9C.The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman relied on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Anishia Chandrakanth v. the Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, in which it was held that in view of Notification No. 07/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 25/2023, there appears to be...
The Kerala High Court has quashed the order demanding a late fee for delay in filing GSTR-9C.
The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman relied on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Anishia Chandrakanth v. the Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, in which it was held that in view of Notification No. 07/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 25/2023, there appears to be no justification in continuing with the notices for non-payment of the late fee for belated GSTR-9C filed by taxpayers before April 1, 2023, the date on which one-time amnesty commences.
GSTR-9C is a reconciliation statement for reconciling values between the annual GSTR-9 of a financial year and the audited financial statements of the taxpayer. Every registered taxpayer whose turnover exceeds Rs. 5 crore during a financial year is required to file this reconciliation statement.
The petitioner/assessee filed the annual return in Form GSTR-9 along with GSTR-9C for the financial years 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 belatedly. But the respondent has demanded a late fee and created a huge demand by order.
The petitioner contended that the Central Government has, via notifications, waived a late fee in excess of Rs. 10,000 liable to be paid under Section 47 of the CGST/KSGST Act in respect of an assessee who did not file annual returns for the period from the financial year 2018–2019 until April 1, 2023, but filed the same on or before August 31, 2023.
The petitioner stated that he has filed the annual returns for the said years before April 1, 2023, is entitled to the benefits of the said notifications, and the order is liable to be set aside.
The court set aside the order to the extent it sought to collect a late fee for delay in filing GSTR-9C. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to claim a refund of the late fee that has already been paid by him over and above Rs. 10,000.
Counsel For Petitioner: Meera V.Menon
Counsel For Respondent: Sreelal N.Warrier
Case Title: Raju Sreedharan Versus The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 9681 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 416