Annual return GSTR9, Goods and Services Tax - GST

[Sudhir Kumar]

Sir any notification or circular which restrict the taxpayer to file annual return GSTR-9 after 03 years.

Please guide

Posts / Replies

[KASTURI SETHI]

Amendment of section 44. (inserted vide Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 1.10.23) This is the latest as on today.

144. Section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof, and after sub-section (1) as so renumbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:—

"(2) A registered person shall not be allowed to furnish an annual return under sub-section (1) for a financial year after the expiry of a period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said annual return:

Provided that the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified therein, allow a registered person or a class of registered persons to furnish an annual return for a financial year under sub-section (1), even after the expiry of the said period of three years from the due date of furnishing the said annual return.".

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

Ld. Kasthuri Ji,

Whether this amendment would apply to those Annual Return (GSTR-9) to be filed after 1-10-2023 i.e. FY 2022-23 onwards (For eg, the due date for FY 2022-23 was 31-12-2023 so, GSTR-9 for FY 2022-23 cannot be filed after 31-12-2026)

OR

Is it applicable to Annual return (GSTR-9) for any FY to be filed after 01-10-2023, if as on that date i.e. 01-10-2023, a period of 3 years have already expired? (For eg, GSTR-9 for FY 2018-19 has not been filed till date. The due date was 31-03-2020. As on 01-10-2023, 3 years has already expired.)

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Padmanathan Kollemgode Ji,

First illustration  is legally correct.

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

Thank you for your views. I agree with the same too. However, CGST Department has adopted latter view during audit in one of my cases.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Padmanathan Kollengode Ji,

Such like situation arose in the year 2008 in Service Tax matter. The issue was different but dispute regarding effective date was the same. The department implemented the notification retrospectively instead of prospectively and filed appeal against the Order-in-Original. Ultimately CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the department and CESTAT's Order was accepted by the department. Thereafter, decks were cleared for all on the same issue and that practice is still in force.

If any Audit Officer adopts your second illustration (latter), that officer is saving his skin and nothing else.

These are my personal views for education purpose only.

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

Thanks for clarification both the experts.

[Sudhir Kumar]

Thanks for valuable opinions