TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of GST regime. HELD THAT:- The case is of the initial period of the GST regime. There were genuine difficulties faced by the assessees/dealers and even tax experts in understanding the GST regime. The petitioner has committed a bona fide mistake of depositing the KFC in the wrong account along with its GSTR-3B instead of filing a KFC-A return for payment of the KFC. The petitioner has been refunded the said cess by the 3rd respondent on direction issued by this Court. However, the fact remains that the State was denied KFC from 1st August 2019 to 04.08.2022 - it appears that the petitioner has not been vigilant in responding to the notices issued to the petitioner, inasmuch as the notice of March 2021 remains unanswered by him. Consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % of the tax liability under the GST Act and Rules made thereunder. This 1% KFC was applicable from 01.08.2019 up to July 2021. 2.1 The petitioner, while filing his GSTR-3B, remitted the KFC along with its GSTR-3B returns in the Central Government Cess Pool from 01.08.2019 to July 2021. The petitioner could come to know about the posting of the KFC in the wrong head through a notice issued by the respondents in Ext.P1, which mentions that the petitioner was issued notice on 19.03.2021 for making the deposit of KFC and filing the return in KFC-A to remit the flood cess for the period from August 2019 to July 2021. On scrutiny, it could be learned that the petitioner had paid the cess under the incorrect head through GSTR-3B. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether the petitioner will be liable for any interest, late fee, and penalty will be decided in the writ petition. After receipt of this Order, the petitioner remitted the Kerala Flood Cess by filing KFC-A on 04.08.2022. The petitioner has also remitted the interest due on the said KFC. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without payment of interest, it would not have been possible for the petitioner to upload KFC-A and the payment of KFC would not have been successful. Therefore, the petitioner had paid the interest under protest subject to the final decision in the writ petition. 3.1 Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had paid the KFC on time, but in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected. 5. I have considered the submissions. 5.1 The case is of the initial period of the GST regime. There were genuine difficulties faced by the assessees/dealers and even tax experts in understanding the GST regime. The petitioner has committed a bona fide mistake of depositing the KFC in the wrong account along with its GSTR-3B instead of filing a KFC-A return for payment of the KFC. The petitioner has been refunded the said cess by the 3rd respondent on direction issued by this Court. However, the fact remains that the State was denied KFC from 1st August 2019 to 04.08.2022. From the facts as directed above, it appears that the petitioner has not been vigilant in responding to the notices issued to the petitioner, inasmuch as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
