Writ Allowed: GST Payment in GSTR-9 for FY 2017-18 Must Be Properly Adjusted, Orders Set Aside HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the tax authorities had misread the petitioner's GSTR-9 for FY 2017-18. It was undisputed that only one GSTR-9, ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Writ Allowed: GST Payment in GSTR-9 for FY 2017-18 Must Be Properly Adjusted, Orders Set Aside
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the tax authorities had misread the petitioner's GSTR-9 for FY 2017-18. It was undisputed that only one GSTR-9, dated 30.01.2020, had been filed and its figures, including GST deposited in June 2018 (FY 2018-19) towards FY 2017-18 liability, were correct. The assessing and appellate authorities erroneously ignored that payment and thereby passed unsustainable orders. Setting aside both impugned orders, HC directed the respondents to adjust the GST amount already deposited by the petitioner against the relevant period's tax liability, thereby granting full relief to the petitioner.
Issues: Challenge to GST Act orders, Adjustment of GST amount, Misreading of GSTR-9
Analysis: The petitioner challenged orders passed under Section 61 and Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, along with the dismissal of their appeal. They sought a mandamus to adjust the GST amount deposited in the financial year 2018-19, which was meant for 2017-19, based on a circular and Section 39(9) of the GST Act. The petitioner received a notice under Section 61, alleging discrepancies in turnover between their GSTR-9 and bank statement. The petitioner argued that the turnover discrepancy was due to supplies to unregistered persons only. The court noted that the authorities failed to consider the complete GSTR-9, which showed a total turnover of Rs. 20,37,13,502.00 lakhs for the financial year 2017-18. The Standing Counsel did not dispute the figures in the GSTR-9 submitted by the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that both assessing and appellate authorities misread the form.
The court held that the impugned orders were based on a misreading of the GSTR-9 and set them aside. The respondents were directed to adjust the GST amount deposited by the petitioner as requested. Additionally, the security amount deposited under the interim order was to be released in favor of the petitioner. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, providing relief to the petitioner and rectifying the errors made by the authorities in interpreting the GSTR-9 form.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
