2025 (1) TMI 1425 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order assessing the petitioner under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act apart from penalty and interest for the financial year 2018-19 - HELD THAT - For the months of November 2018 upto March 2019 the petitioner ought to have as per section 16(4) filed the returns by 20-10-2019. However petitioner filed the returns GSTR-3B only on 26.11.2019. Hence the claim for input tax credit availed by the petitioner was denied and the demand and penalty were imposed on them. After the introduction of Section 16(5) the time period for filing such returns has been extended upto 30.11.2021. If the return filed by the petitioner is taken into reckoning there could be significant change in the appreciation of facts carried out in Ext.P1. In view of the above the impugned order cannot be legally sustained and it is required to be re-considered. The impugned order Ext. P1 dated 18-04-2024 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Act and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed.

Summary

**Summary:**In the case before the Kerala High Court, the petitioner contested an order dated April 18, 2024, which assessed them under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, imposing penalties and interest for the fiscal year 2018-19. The petitioner, a GST assessee, was denied input tax credit due to the late filing of Form GSTR-3B, as per Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Act. The petitioner filed the returns for November 2018 to March 2019 on November 26, 2019, missing the original deadline of October 20, 2019. However, Section 16(5) later extended this deadline to November 30, 2021, potentially entitling the petitioner to the input tax credit previously denied.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that the impugned order could not be legally sustained due to the extension under Section 16(5). Consequently, the order (Ext. P1) was set aside, and the first respondent was instructed to issue fresh orders within three months, considering the provisions of Section 16(5) and providing the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.