Court :
Bombay High Court
Brief :
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yogesh Rajendra Mehra v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax [Writ Petition No. 1632 of 2024 dated February 20, 2024] held that the Authorities should have considered that an Assessee cannot be expected to file his return and deposit any tax under an invalid cancelled registration number. Further, any deficiency in filing the appeal/application cannot make the appeal, which was registered on the online portal within the prescribed period of limitation, barred by limitation. Any such deficiency in the appeal could be removed later on, as the law does not provide, that the proceedings have to be strictly filed without deficiency, and only then, the proceedings would be held to be validly filed. Lastly, procedural compliances can never defeat the substantive remedy/right to pursue any proceedings when filed within limitation. Thus, any procedural deficiency in the proceeding filed within the prescribed limitation cannot be labelled to be a proceeding filed beyond limitation.
Citation :
Writ Petition No. 1632 of 2024 dated February 20, 2024
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yogesh Rajendra Mehra v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax [Writ Petition No. 1632 of 2024 dated February 20, 2024] held that the Authorities should have considered that an Assessee cannot be expected to file his return and deposit any tax under an invalid cancelled registration number. Further, any deficiency in filing the appeal/application cannot make the appeal, which was registered on the online portal within the prescribed period of limitation, barred by limitation. Any such deficiency in the appeal could be removed later on, as the law does not provide, that the proceedings have to be strictly filed without deficiency, and only then, the proceedings would be held to be validly filed. Lastly, procedural compliances can never defeat the substantive remedy/right to pursue any proceedings when filed within limitation. Thus, any procedural deficiency in the proceeding filed within the prescribed limitation cannot be labelled to be a proceeding filed beyond limitation.
Mr. Yogesh Rajendra Mehra ("the Petitioner")was a scriptwriter who took assignments on a contract basis. The Petitioner was granted GST registration on July 19, 2018. The Petitioner filed the GST return under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act") on December 02, 2018, and thereafter, no returns were filed. By an Order dated January 01, 2019, the said registration of the Petitioner was cancelled and was rendered inconsequential.
The Petitioner started professional activities and made an application for a fresh registration which came to be granted to the Petitioner on March 26, 2022, with a new registration.
For the first quarter of the year 2022, two returns were filed by the Petitioner's Chartered Accountant who inadvertently, deposited a tax of Rs.1,22,220/- in the cancelled registration number i.e. the old GST account, as also under the new registration number, when in fact, the returns were required to be filed and tax was to be deposited only under the new registration account, which was in vogue and not the cancelled registration.
Due to the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner approached the Department with an application claiming refund of Rs.1,22,220/-, being tax deposited by mistake in the returns under the cancelled registration number.
On such refund application, the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice ("the SCN"). The Petitioner stated that there was a mistake that had occurred in the filing of the returns under the cancelled registration number and depositing tax of the said amount.
The Assistant Commissioner by Order dated June 08, 2022 ("the Impugned Order"), rejected the refund application.
Being aggrieved by the Impugned Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Petitioner approached the Commissioner of Central Tax, the Appellate Authority ("the Respondent")under the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act. By the Order dated December 28, 2022 ("the Impugned Order"), the Petitioner's appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation stating that, although the Impugned Order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on June 08, 2022, according to the Respondent, the appeal was filed on December 28, 2022, which was barred by the provisions of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act.
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Orders, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Whether the Tax Authorities can retain the tax deposited under the cancelled registration?
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1632 of 2024 held as under:
LIVE Course on Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA)(with recording)
LIVE Form 10 B and Form 10BB: Handle Tax Audit Reports of Charitable Organizations(with recording)