9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 331 - HC - GSTFailure to file the returns in Form GSTR-3B - failure to discharge the tax liability - petitioner had requested time for paying the amounts purportedly in terms of Section 80 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - There are no infirmity in the Impugned Order as there is no scope for exercising discretion by extending the period for payment of tax particularly when there was self-assessment made by filing the returns in form GSTR-1. The petitioner ought to have also filed form GSTR-3B and paid the tax - Even otherwise more than two years have lapsed since the Impugned Order dated 13.04.2022 was passed. Therefore, the petitioner could have paid the amount during the pendency of the present writ petition. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to Impugned Order dated 13.04.2022 under Section 80 of CGST Act, 2017. 2. Request for time to pay tax liability. 3. Defense of respondents regarding the time period and non-payment of tax. 4. Discretion for extending the period for tax payment. 5. Delay in payment of tax liability. 6. Relief sought by the petitioner. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the Impugned Order dated 13.04.2022, which was based on Section 80 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Order highlighted the provision for making payment of GST in installments under Section 80, subject to certain conditions and limitations. The Order emphasized that the facility of installment payment applies only when the non-payment of GST is not related to the liability self-assessed in any return. It referred to the taxpayer's declaration of liability in GSTR 1 returns but failure to file GSTR 3B returns, leading to the conclusion that the taxpayer had self-assessed the GST liability. The Order also cited a previous decision by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to support this interpretation. 2. The petitioner had requested time to pay the tax liability, citing Section 80 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the respondents defended the Impugned Order by stating that the amount due pertained to a period before the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown and that no further payments had been made by the petitioner towards the tax liability. The court found no infirmity in the Impugned Order, emphasizing that self-assessment was done through GSTR 1 but not followed up with filing GSTR 3B and payment of tax. 3. The defense put forth by the respondents highlighted the time period in question, the lack of payments made by the petitioner, and the absence of any further payments during the pendency of the writ petition. The court noted that more than two years had passed since the Impugned Order was issued, indicating a delay in addressing the tax liability. The court held that there was no scope for exercising discretion to extend the period for tax payment, especially when self-assessment had been done through GSTR 1 but not completed with GSTR 3B filing and tax payment. 4. The court concluded that no further relief could be granted to the petitioner, as the pendency of the writ petition itself had served as a temporary relief. The Writ Petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to pay the amount with interest and request either the revival of registration or fresh registration from the respondents. The judgment did not impose any costs on the petitioner, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
