2019 (9) TMI 873 - HC - GST

Refund of late fee collected - delay in Form GSTR-3B - CGST Act, 2017 - legality of N/N. 76/2018 dated 31.12.18 - HELD THAT - If the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the late fee already deposited, nothing prevented him from making an application claiming the refund to the concerned authority in accordance with law - The petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions as aforesaid for the refund of the amount without approaching the respondents by way of appropriate application/representation, cannot be entertained by this court. Legality of N/N. 76/2018 dated 31.12.18 - HELD THAT - Indisputably, the impugned notification is issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 120 of the Act, which already stands published in the official gazette. The notification issued being a statutory notification, the validity thereof is not open to be examined by the Single Bench. It is always open for the petitioner to file the petition challenging the notification before the Division Bench, if so advised. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking refund of late fee under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Legality of notification No.76/2018 dated 31.12.18 waiving late fee.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions for the refund of late fee collected while filing returns under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the legality of notification No.76/2018 dated 31.12.18, which waived late fees for failure to furnish returns in Form GSTR-3B. The notification specified conditions for the waiver of late fees.

2. The court noted that if the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the late fee, he should have followed the proper procedure by making an application to the concerned authority for the refund. The court stated that the petitioner cannot bypass the proper channels and directly approach the court for a refund without first seeking it from the authorities.

3. The judgment highlighted that the impugned notification waiving late fees was issued by the Central Government under the power conferred by Section 120 of the Act. The court emphasized that the validity of a statutory notification like this cannot be examined by a Single Bench. The petitioner was advised to challenge the notification before a Division Bench if desired.

4. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition with the observations mentioned above, indicating that the petitioner should have followed the appropriate procedures for seeking a refund and that the validity of the notification could be challenged before the Division Bench if necessary.