Case Law Details
Raju Sreedharan Vs Superintendent (Kerala High Court)
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has quashed the order demanding a late fee for the delayed filing of GSTR-9C. The court’s decision in the case of Raju Sreedharan Vs Superintendent has provided relief to taxpayers who had filed their returns before the amnesty period commenced on 01.04.2023.
The petitioner, Raju Sreedharan, is an assessee under the CGST/KSGST Act. He filed his annual returns in Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 belatedly. The respondent, however, demanded a late fee, resulting in a substantial financial burden on the petitioner, as indicated by the Ext.P3 order.
The petitioner contested this demand, citing notifications Exts.P4 and P5 issued by the Central Government. These notifications waived the late fee exceeding Rs.10,000 for taxpayers who had not filed their annual returns for the specified period but had filed them on or before 31.08.2023. Since the petitioner had filed the returns before 01.04.2023, he argued that he was entitled to the benefits of these notifications, making the demand in Ext.P3 unjustified.
The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the Kerala High Court in the case of Anishia Chandrakanth v. the Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise. In this judgment, the court had held that in light of the Exts.P4 and P5 notifications, there was no justification for continuing with the notices demanding late fees for GSTR-9C filed before 01.04.2023.
The operative portion of the Anishia Chandrakanth judgment stated:
“When the Government itself has waived late fee under the aforesaid two notifications Nos.7/2023 dated 31.03.2023 and 25/2023 dated 17.07.2023 in excess of Rs.10,000/-, in case of non-filers there appears to be no justification in continuing with the notices for non-payment of late fee for belated GSTR 9C, that too filed by the taxpayers before 01.04.2023, the date on which one time amnesty commences.”
Considering the arguments and the precedent set by the Anishia Chandrakanth case, the Kerala High Court quashed the Ext.P3 order. The court ruled that the demand for a late fee for the delayed filing of GSTR-9C was unsustainable for returns filed before the amnesty period commenced.
However, the court clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to claim a refund for any late fee already paid exceeding Rs.10,000. This distinction ensures that while taxpayers receive relief from unjust demands, the integrity of the notifications’ limits is maintained.
The Kerala High Court’s judgment in Raju Sreedharan Vs Superintendent marks a pivotal moment for taxpayers under the CGST/KSGST Act, offering clarity and relief regarding late fee demands for GSTR-9C filings. By setting aside the demand for returns filed before the amnesty period, the court has reinforced the significance of government notifications and upheld the rights of assessees. This decision is expected to have a positive impact on the compliance landscape, encouraging timely filings while ensuring fair treatment of taxpayers.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST/KSGST Act’). The petitioner 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 late fee and created huge demand by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner states that the Central Government has vide Exts.P4 and P5 notifications waived 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 financial year 2018 – 2019 till 01.04.2023 but filed the same on or before 31.08.2023. The petitioner states that he has filed the annual returns for the said years before 01.04.2023 and is entitled to the benefits of the said notifications and Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.30644 of 2023 dated 09.04.2024 [Anishia Chandrakanth v. the Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise], wherein it has been held that in view of Exts.P4 and P5 notifications, there appears to be no justification in continuing with the notices for non payment of late fee for belated GSTR – 9C filed by tax payees before 01.04.2023, the date on which one time amnesty commences. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-
“25. When the Government itself has waived late fee under the aforesaid two notifications Nos.7/2023 dated 31.03.2023 and 25/2023 dated 17.07.2023 in excess of Rs.10,000/-, in case of non-filers there appears to be no justification in continuing with the notices for non payment of late fee for belated GSTR 9C, that too filed by the taxpayers before 01.04.2023, the date on which one time amnesty commences.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that notices are unjust and unsustainable to the extent it sought to collect late fee for delay in filing GSTR 9C. However, it is made clear that the petitioners will not be entitled to claim refund of the late fee which has already paid by them over and above Rs.10,000/-.”
3. In the light of the said judgment, Ext.P3 is set aside to the extent it sought to collect late fee for delay in filing GSTR – 9C. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to claim refund of the late fee which has already been paid by him over and above Rs.10,000/-.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Author Bio
