TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of 30 days as provided under Section 62 (2) in the peculiar facts of the case, in light of permission granted by the court in its order dated 13.02.2019, the petitioner could continue to file the return within the time granted by the Court and the return filed was a return as contemplated under Section 62 (2) which is to be construed to be return filed within the time. If that were to be so, the return filed in terms of the order dated 20.09.2018 was a return in terms of Section 62(2) and the best judgment assessment orders passed under Section 62(1) would stand withdrawn viz., assessment orders. The impugned endorsement is set aside and the return filed under Section 62 (2) of the Act is directed to be proceeded with in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r were to file his return by 07.10.2018, attachment in respect of the goods would be released in favour of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the petitioner subsequently, in order to file his returns made deposit of a sum of ₹ 2 Crores and had requested taking into account, the previous deposit made to enable filing of return. However, the amount that was to be appropriated towards KGST including ₹ 2 Crores deposited by the petitioner, the amount which ought to have been appropriated towards IGST has been wrongly appropriated towards KGST. This aspect of wrongful appropriation is not in dispute. In light of the same, it is submitted that returns could not be filed despite their intention to avail of the opportunity of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re still valid and demands pursuant was required to be satisfied. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that passing of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-'A' is without appreciating the developments in proper perspective insofar as observations made by this court in W.P.No.40360-364/2018 in its order of 20.09.2018 had in effect recorded the stand of the State that if the petitioner were to file the returns by 07.10.2018, the attachment would be lifted. In fact, it is submitted that if the return were to be filed by making necessary deposit within the period as the State had sought to permit as observed in the said order, return filed would be one filed under Section 62 (2) of the Act and the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in fact granted to the petitioner to file return within a specified time and the return to be filed within the said time referred to the return under Section 62 (2) and in light of appropriation of tax paid under the wrong head, this court by its order of 13.02.2019 had further extended the time within which time returns were to be filed. If that were to be so, though the period of 30 days as provided under Section 62 (2) in the peculiar facts of the case, in light of permission granted by the court in its order dated 13.02.2019, the petitioner could continue to file the return within the time granted by the Court and the return filed was a return as contemplated under Section 62 (2) which is to be construed to be return filed within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
