9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1102 - HC - GSTSeeking a direction to the respondents to extend the period of time for submitting of Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for the financial year 2019-20 - Section 44 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 35(5) of the RGST Act and Rule 80 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted since the period for filing of the return is fixed by the Statute and it is the statutory authority alone who has power and authority to extend any period for compliance. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ application and leave it to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the statutory authority to seek further extension. We refrain to entertain the present writ application and the same stands dismissed.
Issues:
Extension of time for submitting Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for the financial year 2019-20. Analysis: The petitioner sought a direction to extend the deadline for submitting Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for the financial year 2019-20 until 10.09.2021, citing relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, RGST Act, and CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the period for filing the return should start from the date of the last publication of the notified forms, i.e., 10.12.2020 & 30.12.2020. However, the court held that the period for filing the return is fixed by the statute, and only the statutory authority has the power to extend any compliance period. Consequently, the court refused to entertain the writ application and advised the petitioner to approach the statutory authority for further extension if needed. The court emphasized that it is the statutory authority's sole prerogative to extend compliance periods and dismissed the writ application. The petitioner was advised to seek further extension through the appropriate channels. The court expressed hope that any such representation made by the petitioner would be promptly considered and resolved by the authorities. Ultimately, the court declined to entertain the writ application, leading to its dismissal.
|
