2024 (5) TMI 1188 - HC - GST

Rejection of adjudication order - intent to evade tax - existence of mens rea or not - whether the annual return filed by the appellant in GSTR-9 for the financial year 2017-18 can altogether be ignored? - HELD THAT - The appellant submitted representation but however, the adjudicating authority in the order dated 15th December, 2023 maintained the same stand. The two aspects have appealed to send back the matter to the adjudicating authority. First is with regard to the effect of GSTR-9. This being an annual return filed within the extended period of limitation viz. , upto 7th February, 2020 on account of various notifications issued by the Government due to the Covid pandemic. Therefore, if the GSTR-9, which was filed within time is not considered, the assessee s rights would be greatly prejudiced. The second aspect, which has persuaded is the contention of the assessee that the entire matter is revenue neutral. The matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority viz. , the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Taltala and New Market Charge to consider the submissions made by the assessee, afford an opportunity of personal hearing, examine the annual return filed in GSTR-9 and proceed to take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to adjudication order, consideration of annual return filed in GSTR-9 for financial year 2017-18.

Adjudication Order Challenge: The appellant challenged the order rejecting the challenge to the adjudication order, directing them to avail the statutory appellate remedy. The High Court heard submissions from both parties and considered whether the annual return filed in GSTR-9 for the financial year 2017-18 could be ignored.

Annual Return Consideration: The appellant had initially clarified certain discrepancies in their returns to the concerned officer. They later brought to the department's attention missed output GST liability and equivalent Input tax credit of Cess for the relevant period, correcting the error in their GSTR-9 filing. The appellant emphasized that the error was unintentional, with no intent to evade tax, and that it was revenue neutral.

Court's Decision: The Court noted the importance of considering the GSTR-9 filed within the extended period due to Covid-19 notifications, to prevent prejudice to the assessee's rights. Additionally, the Court acknowledged the appellant's argument that the matter was revenue neutral. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing that the order should not be treated as a precedent.

Conclusion: The appeal and connected application were disposed of with no costs, and the Court directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the submissions, provide a personal hearing, examine the GSTR-9 annual return, and make a fresh decision in accordance with the law.