TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(hereafter "the said Act of 2017"). 2. The relevant facts as may be gathered from the material on record are these : a) The petitioners are dealers of motor vehicles. During the financial year 2017-2018, the petitioners had purchased motor vehicles from their supplier and had paid GST along with CESS as indicated in the tax invoices. b) CESS charged by the petitioners' supplier on the supplies made by it to the petitioners were duly reflected in Form GSTR-2A in terms of Section 38 of the said Act of 2017. c) The petitioners also charged CESS to their purchasers but since the petitioners earnestly believed that no CESS was payable by the petitioners as the petitioners had sufficient accumulated CESS on the inwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 contending that the petitioners have not made any suppression or willful misstatement and have not committed any fraud, as alleged in the notice to show-cause and as held in the adjudication order impugned before the appellate authority. It was also contended by the petitioners that the mistake that had been committed in form GSTR-3B was ultimately corrected by the petitioners by filing the annual return in form GSTR-9. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the petitioners were also entitled to ITC in respect of CESS paid by them on the inward supplies made to the petitioners, the same would be offset ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect of petitioners' disclosure made in the annual return filed in Form GSTR-9. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also paid the differential sum (i.e. the difference between the ITC available to the petitioners on the CESS paid by them to their supplier and the CESS collected by them from their purchasers) and therefore the error of initial non-disclosure by the petitioners is revenue neutral. 4. In support of his contention he relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Ankit Kumar Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge, reported at (2024)20 Centax 373 (Cal). 5. He also places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in case of Sri Shanmuga Har....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e inasmuch as the same were inserted by the Finance Act of 2023 with effect from October 1, 2023 and that the petitioners had filed their annual return in form GSTR-9 on August 28, 2023 (page 59 of the writ petition) i.e. prior to the said provision taking effect. It is further submitted that it will appear from the records of the appellate authority itself that no question as regards the validity of Form GSTR-9 filed by the petitioners has been raised by the appellate authority and that the appellate authority has rather relied on the said GSTR-9 for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners' case did/does not fall within the scope of Section 74 of the said Act of 2017. 10. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appended to Section 44(2) of the said Act of 2017 provided for a date by which annual returns were to be filed but then since there was neither any fatal consequence provided for failure to file the same within that time nor was there any negative mandate prohibiting filing of return after a particular period, therefore the same cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to totally preclude late filers from filing the return. In fact the provision for late fees in filing annual return provided in Section 47 of the said Act of 2017 also indicates that total preclusion of late filers was not intended. 13. The submission of Mr. Sanyal that Ankit Kumar Agarwal (supra) cannot be cited as precedent, must be accepted inasmuch as the observations ....