TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in VEERAN MEHHTA PROP. BOMBAY HARDWARE SYNDICATE, CHENNAI VERSUS DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER/DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI - 2024 (7) TMI 410 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, directed the disposal of the Order dated January 22, 2024, which was based on a belatedly filed Form GSTR-1, for the wrong assessment period. The Court further held that no recovery or coercive measures could be initiated until the Assessee’s rectification petition was resolved.
Facts:
Veeran Mehhta (“the Petitioner”) had correctly filed Form GSTR-3B for January 2018-19 by declaring the correct outward taxable supplies and, in particular, the IGST value thereof as Rs.4,17,577/-. The Petitioner, while filing the belated Form GSTR-1 for January 2019, inadvertently submitted the return for July for the assessment year 2019-2020 assessment period, instead of the return for January of the 2018-2019 assessment period. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Deputy State Tax Officer (“the Respondent”) passed an order dated January 22,2024 (“the Impugned Order”), based on Form GSTR-1. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed rectification petition on June 01, 2024. The Petitioner was then threatened with recovery action based on the Impugned Order.
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in VEERAN MEHHTA PROP. BOMBAY HARDWARE SYNDICATE, CHENNAI VERSUS DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER/DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI - 2024 (7) TMI 410 - MADRAS HIGH COURTheld as under:
- Noted that, the Petitioner placed on record the Form GSTR-3B for January in the assessment period 2018-2019. The Form GSTR-1, purportedly for July in the assessment period 2019-2020 was also on record. The outward taxable value pertaining to IGST in the two documents tallied. The Petitioner also placed on record the tax liability comparison report from the GST portal. This document also indicated an excess in liability when the Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-1 were compared. Such excess was Rs. 4,17,577/-. In these circumstances, a prima facie case was made out for consideration of the rectification petition.
- Held that, the writ petition was disposed of without any order. Further, the Respondent was restrained from initiating recovery or coercive measures until the rectification petition was disposed of and lastly, directed the Respondent to consider and dispose of the rectification application within three months from the date of the order.
(Author can be reached at [email protected])