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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
