9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1089 - HC - GSTImposition of late fee, interest and penalty - delayed filing of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 - HELD THAT - It is pointed out by Mr. Contractor that till this date, no proceedings have been initiated as apprehended. It is just an apprehension on the basis of which the writ-applicant is praying for in terms of Paragraph 14(d). - In such circumstances, no further adjudication is required. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Verification of credit availed by the writ-applicant by Gujarat Commissionerate. 2. Relief sought by the petitioner regarding late fee, interest, and penalty for delayed filing of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1. Issue 1: Verification of credit availed by the writ-applicant by Gujarat Commissionerate The High Court noted that pursuant to its order, the Gujarat Commissionerate verified the credit availed by the writ-applicant and issued a certificate confirming the completion of this procedure. The Court acknowledged the certificate of verification presented by the advocate for the petitioners, which was dated 23rd July 2019. The Court further mentioned that all necessary steps in this regard have been finalized as per the provided certificate. Issue 2: Relief sought by the petitioner regarding late fee, interest, and penalty for delayed filing of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 The primary relief sought by the petitioner was outlined in Paragraph 14(d) of the petition, which requested a writ, order, or direction to prohibit the respondents from imposing or waiving any late fee, interest, and penalty on the petitioner for the delayed filing of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 from January 2018 until the transition credit was made available. The petitioner expressed concerns about potential proceedings being initiated, leading to the prayer for relief as specified in Paragraph 14(d. The advocate representing the petitioner informed the Court that no proceedings had been initiated as feared, indicating that the relief sought in terms of Paragraph 14(d) was not being pursued. The petitioner decided not to press the application concerning the relief specified in Paragraph 14(d) as other aspects had been addressed adequately. Consequently, the Court concluded that no further adjudication was necessary, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the High Court, focusing on the verification of credit availed by the writ-applicant and the relief sought regarding late fee, interest, and penalty for delayed filing of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1.
|
