2020 (10) TMI 429 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing returns - Rejection of refund claim - rejection on finding that the returns claiming the input tax credit had not been filed within time - HELD THAT - Probably on account of the fact that Ext.P4 order of the assessing authority had not been carried in appeal by the petitioner, the 1st respondent, when considering the delay condonation application preferred by the petitioner, passed Ext.P2 order refusing to condone the delay - When the matter came up for admission before this Court, and on a request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was permitted to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4 order of the Assessing Officer so as to keep the issue of belated filing of return and condonation thereof alive. The petitioner has accordingly prefered Ext.P5 appeal before the Joint Commissioner Appeals , Ernakulam, who is suo motu impleaded as the additional 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition. The 1st respondent shall consider the delay condonation application filed by the petitioner afresh within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner, and taking note of the filing of Ext.P5 appeal against Ext.P4 order before the additional 3rd respondent - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay condonation application for filing returns, rejection of application for refund, appeal against assessing authority's order, consideration of input tax credit claim.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the court aggrieved by the rejection of his application for condonation of delay in filing returns, where he claimed input tax credit. The rejection was based on a previous order by the assessing authority, which had rejected the application for refund due to the untimely filing of returns claiming input tax credit. The court noted that since the petitioner had not appealed the assessing authority's order, the delay condonation application was refused. However, upon a request, the petitioner was allowed to appeal the assessing officer's order to address the issue of belated filing of returns and condonation of delay. The court directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the delay condonation application after the petitioner filed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of allowing the petitioner to claim the input tax credit if valid reasons for delay were found.

The court quashed the 1st respondent's order, instructing them to review the delay condonation application within three weeks after receiving the judgment and after hearing the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner was required to present the new order to the additional 3rd respondent for consideration in the appeal filed against the assessing officer's order. The additional 3rd respondent was directed to decide on the appeal within three weeks after receiving the 1st respondent's order and after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was also instructed to provide copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the concerned respondents for further action. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directives to ensure a fair consideration of the delay condonation application and the input tax credit claim.