Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ahamed Usman Vs Deputy Commissioner-1 (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WP(C) No. 4468 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ahamed Usman Vs Deputy Commissioner-1 (Kerala High Court)

In the case of Ahamed Usman vs. Deputy Commissioner-1 (Kerala High Court), the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief concerning the revision of Form GSTR 3B for the period from August 2017, January 2018, and February 2018 for the financial year 2017-2018. The petitioner’s application for revision was submitted towards the end of January 2024. However, the court noted that Section 39(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 explicitly prohibits rectification of errors or omissions in returns after a specified period.

Section 39(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 states that no rectification of errors or omissions in returns shall be allowed after the thirtieth day of November following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain, or the actual date of furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. This provision sets a clear deadline for rectification, and any rectification beyond this period is not permitted, except as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection, or enforcement activity by the tax authorities.

The government had extended the time for rectification in respect of returns filed from July 2017 to March 2018 until March 2019 due to initial difficulties faced by dealers under the GST Act. However, the petitioner did not file any rectification application during this extended period. Subsequently, an ASMT 10 notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.08.2020 under Section 61 of the Act.

The court observed that once an ASMT 10 notice is issued, no rectification application is permitted under Section 39(9) of the Act. Therefore, considering the statutory prescription and the delay in filing the rectification application, the court found no ground to entertain the writ petition. The petition suffered from both delay and laches, and the prayer in the writ petition was barred by the express provision of Section 39(9) of the Act.

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

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031