Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 48 - HC - GSTRecovery proceedings under GST - Scope of section 73 - Legal validity of GSTR-3B returns - it has been stated that Revenue has not followed the prescribed procedure relating to demand and recovery, as provided under the Act of 2017 - It has also been contended that without determination of tax payable by taxable person, no recovery could have been initiated under Section 79 (1)(c) of the Act of 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has certainly not paid the GST. It is noteworthy to mention that GSTR-1 is declaration of tax liability and GSTR-3B is evidence of actual payment. The petitioner has stated that GSTR-1 cannot be termed or classified as self assessed liability, it is only a declaration made for limited purpose. The said issued stands concluded on account of notification dated 09.10.2019 bearing No.49/2019, wherein an amendment has been made in Rule 61 of the GST Rules with retrospective effect and filing of GSTR-3B has been made compulsory. It was mandatory for the petitioner to file GSTR-3B Return - Not only this, bare perusal of the statutory provision as contained under Section 79 of the Act of 2017 and procedure adopted by the respondents reveal that the procedure contemplated under Chapter 15 of the Act of 2017 has been followed as Section 79 (1)(c) falls in Chapter 15 of the Act of 2017 and the same has rightly been invoked. The petitioner has contended that in absence of tax determination under Section 73, no recovery could have been ordered in the manner and method it has been done in the present case - This Court is of the considered opinion that the tax determination has already been done in the present case, as the petitioner itself has quantified its tax liability under the GSTR-1 Returns. The petitioner's contention that in absence of determination of tax under Section 73 no recovery can be made, is unfounded and in fact Section 73 has got no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, there is no necessity to determine the taxable person, as the liability has been self assessed by the petitioner itself. So far as the determination of taxable person in the present case is concerned, the case of revenue rests on the GSTR declaration made by the petitioner itself, and therefore, there was no need of determination of taxable person. Since the liability has already been quantified by the petitioner itself, only attempts are being made for recovering revenue dues under Section 79 (1)(c) of the Act of 2017. It was the petitioner itself, who did not receive the notice issued by the Department, and now, at this juncture cannot blame the Department - The petitioner cannot escape his liability of payment of GST under Act of 2017, especially when he has filed GSTR-1 and has quantified the tax payable by him while submitting the GSTR-1. Petition dismissed.
|