MODICUM ENTERPRISE (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED (CALCUTTA HIGH COURT)
M.A.T NO. 1828 OF 2022 (DOJ: 22/12/2022)
FACTS OF THE CASE The registration was cancelled on the ground that the appellant was a non-existing dealer. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant / writ petitioner preferred the appeal and a clear finding has
been rendered by the appellate authority that the ground on which the cancellation was made, was incorrect.
Consequently, the cancellation of the registration was revoked by an order dated 27th January, 2020 and the registration was restored. When the appellant attempted to file his returns, there is a demand of Rs.5,000/- per return stating that it is late fee payable under Section 47 of the Act.
Consequently, the cancellation of the registration was revoked by an order dated 27th January, 2020 and the registration was restored. When the appellant attempted to file his returns, there is a demand of Rs.5,000/- per return stating that it is late fee payable under Section 47 of the Act.
QUESTION
The question would be whether the late fee can be demanded from the appellant. Admittedly, the provision deals with a person, who fails to furnish the returns either under Section 39 or Section 45 or Section 44. In the instant case, the revenue does not state that the appellant failed
to furnish its return within the due date. The reason for non-furnishing the return is
cancellation of the registration on the ground that the appellant is a non-existing dealer.
COURT OBSERVATION & ORDER
This order was set aside by the appellate authority holding that the order was passed on a factually incorrect premise. If that be so, the appellant cannot be penalised by demanding late fee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 47 does not stand attracted.
COURT OBSERVATION & ORDER
This order was set aside by the appellate authority holding that the order was passed on a factually incorrect premise. If that be so, the appellant cannot be penalised by demanding late fee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 47 does not stand attracted.
We are of the view that the demand of late fee from the appellant @ Rs.5,000/- per return is without jurisdiction and not tenable in the eye of law. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing forthe official respondents that unless appropriate direction is given to the concerned respondent, the appellant will not be able to electronically file its return. In the light of the above, the following directions are issued.
This appeal and the connected application as well as the writ petition are disposed of by restraining the respondents from demanding any late fee from the appellant in respect of the returns, which they intend to file and to facilitate the process of filing the return, the nodal officer in the Goods and Services Tax Help Desk, Kolkata is directed to render necessary assistance so that the appellant will be able to file the return without the payment of late fee. This direction shallbe complied with within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order.