2019 (5) TMI 1812 - HC - GST

Demand of differential GST - Amount arising as a result of error in GST Return-3 for the month of July wherein the Service Tax liability was shown as ₹ 33,88,979/- instead of ₹ 3,88,979/- - HELD THAT - Since the petitioner is fair to deposit the difference amount under protest, it is directed that the petitioner may deposit the difference of tax amount under protest within a period of two weeks before respondents No. 2 3 then in such case, petitioner s application for re-registration may be considered within a further period of two weeks keeping in view the factual aspect which has happened in this case. It is further directed that the amount so deposited shall be subject to the order which may be passed by respondent No. 2. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Incorrect Service Tax liability shown in GST Return-3 leading to cancellation of registration.
2. Petitioner's request for restoration of registration to file subsequent returns and continue business.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition due to inadvertently showing a Service Tax liability of ?33,88,979 instead of ?3,88,979 in the GST Return-3 for July. This error led to a discrepancy in tax liability between State and Centre, preventing the filing of subsequent returns and resulting in the cancellation of registration.

2. The petitioner, through their counsel, expressed the inability to pay the tax due to the registration cancellation, highlighting the need for registration restoration to enable timely filing of returns and continuation of business operations. The petitioner sought permission to pay the tax liability dues amounting to ?30 lakhs under protest to expedite the registration restoration process and resume business activities.

3. After perusing the documents and considering the petitioner's submissions, the court directed the petitioner to deposit the difference amount of tax under protest within two weeks before the relevant authorities. Upon deposit, the application for re-registration was to be considered within a further two weeks, taking into account the factual circumstances of the case. The deposited amount was to be subject to the order passed by the concerned authority, ensuring compliance with the legal process.

4. The court, acknowledging the petitioner's willingness to rectify the tax discrepancy and proceed under protest, disposed of the writ petition with the mentioned directions for deposit, application consideration, and registration restoration. The judgment aimed to facilitate the petitioner's compliance with tax obligations, registration reinstatement, and continuation of business activities in a timely manner.