Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Muhammed Shihabudeen, proprietor of M H Gold, Karunagappally, Kollam, and a registered GST dealer, was subjected to scrutiny of his GST returns for financial year 2018-19. Discrepancies were pointed out vide an ASMT-10 letter dated 13.06.2023/05.07.2023, and the petitioner responded that delay in filing GSTR-9C would not attract late fee. The Department held that the Annual Return is complete only on filing both GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C; the petitioner had filed GSTR-9 on 09.01.2021 but GSTR-9C only on 16.02.2023 — a delay of 768 days. Late fee of Rs.200 per day under Section 47 read with Section 44 of the CGST Act, 2017 was imposed, working out to Rs.1,53,600/- (CGST Rs.76,800/- and SGST Rs.76,800/-). The petitioner challenged the resultant order dated 02.11.2023 directly by writ petition instead of filing a statutory appeal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether delay in filing GSTR-9C, as distinct from GSTR-9, attracts late fee under Section 47 read with Section 44 of the CGST Act.
  2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable directly against the assessment order without first exhausting the statutory appellate remedy.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Maintained that GSTR-9C, being a reconciliation statement rather than the Annual Return itself, does not independently attract late fee for delayed filing under Section 47 read with Section 44 of the CGST Act.
  • Contended that since GSTR-9, the Annual Return proper, had already been filed on 09.01.2021, the subsequent, separate filing of GSTR-9C on 16.02.2023 should not be treated as delay in filing the Annual Return itself.
  • Approached the High Court directly by writ petition rather than through a statutory appeal against the order dated 02.11.2023.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Maintained that filing of the Annual Return is complete only upon filing both GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C together, since GSTR-9C forms part of the Annual Return.
  • Since GSTR-9C was filed 768 days after GSTR-9, late fee at Rs.200 per day under Section 47 read with Section 44 of the CGST Act was correctly computed and imposed.
  • The petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal against the order, which he chose not to pursue.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court found that the impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality apparent on its face.
  • The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternate remedy of statutory appeal, in addition to the absence of any jurisdictional infirmity.
  • The Court did not go into the merits of whether the late fee for delayed GSTR-9C filing was correctly computed, leaving that question open to be agitated before the appellate authority.

Important Clarification

  • Writ courts will ordinarily decline to entertain a challenge to a GST assessment or penalty order where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists and no jurisdictional error or patent illegality is shown.
  • The order proceeds on the Department's position that the Annual Return under GST is complete only upon filing both GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C, so delay in filing GSTR-9C can independently attract late fee under Section 47 read with Section 44 of the CGST Act — though the Court itself did not adjudicate this point on merits.

Sections Involved

  • Section 44, CGST Act, 2017 — prescribes the annual return, including the reconciliation statement (GSTR-9C) for specified registered persons.
  • Section 47, CGST Act, 2017 — levies late fee for delayed furnishing of returns, including the annual return.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was dismissed, in favour of the Department, though on the threshold ground of availability of alternate remedy rather than on the merits of whether delayed GSTR-9C filing independently attracts late fee.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  • Case No.: WP(C) No.38279 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
  • Decision Date: 20.11.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Writ petition dismissed on ground of alternate remedy

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.