TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by 1st Appellate Authority and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue (WBGST), Commercial Taxes, WB, Siliguri Circle for reconsideration of the matter afresh taking into consideration of amendment carried out by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021 and also issue raised by the petitioners with regard to bona fide and inadvertent mistake committed by the petitioners accountant and subsequently rectified after detection and brought to knowledge of the Authority in accordance with law. Application disposed off. - HON BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA For the Petitioners : Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia, Mr. Radhika Agarwal, Ms. Meghana Joshi Advocates For the State : Mr. Pretom Das Advocate JUDGMENT AJAY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was detected and rectified and filed the GSTR 3B for the month of April, 2018 on 20.10.2018 by increasing the Output Tax as well as GST Input Tax by 51,60,788/-. 4. It is further submitted that on 29.01.2020 the petitioners filed return in Form 9 as well as the reconciliation statement in Form 9C for the financial year 2017-2018, wherein the petitioners had explained the inadvertent mistake occurred at the time of filing GSTR 3B for the month of November, 2017. As a result of which the petitioners claim Input Tax as well as Output Tax was reduced by 51,60,788/-. But in spite of such fact, certain discrepancies were found during scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017, which was communicated to the petitioners along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2023 overlooking the provision and bonafide mistake. 7. It is further submitted that it is admitted fact that the respondent no. 3 had accepted the fact that the total ITC claim by the petitioners in the Form GSTR 3B for the financial year was 11,00,611.96/-. However, as per the auto-populated GSTR 2A of the said financial year the Input Tax was Rs. 63, 38,350/- which means the petitioners had claimed less ITC by Rs. 52, 37,739/- in the financial year 2017-2018. The said amount was lying in the electronic ledger account with the Government. Petitioners had adjusted the balance tax liabilities by debiting the electronic credit ledger. So, question of payment of interest on delay payment of Output Tax does not arise. It was overlooked by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18198 of 2019 with R/Special Civil Application No. 4025 of 2020 with R/Special Civil Application No. 4487 of 2020 with R/Special Civil Application No. 5146 of 2020 with R/Special Civil Application No. 5247 of 2020 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 in R/Special Civil Application No. 5247 of 2020 with R/Special Civil Application No. 5263 of 2020 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 in R/Special Civil Application No. 5263 of 2020 with R/Special Civil Application No. 5266 of 2020 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 in R/Special Civil Application No. 5266 of 2020 with R/Special Civil Application No. 5276 of 2020 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 in R/Special Civil Application No. 5276 of 2020 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as Input Tax of Rs. 51,60,788/- so as to adjust the previous mistake and in his reply, he specifically contended that there was a bona fide mistake. Apart from that, the Input Tax Credit was available more with the Government in his electronic ledger account as submitted by Ld. Advocate for the petitioners. 12. Provision inserted in sub-Section 50(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017 clearly provides that the interest would be levied only on that part of the tax which is paid in cash, the assessing authority should not have been acted arbitrary in exercise of power to issue Notice. 13. For better comprehension, proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 50 as inserted with effect from 01.08.2019 in consequence of minutes of 31st meeting of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the said period, shall be payable on that portion of the tax which is paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger. [Emphasis supplied] It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at any rate in view of substitution of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021, the Demand Notice dated 17.11.2022 cannot have legs to stand and liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the discussion made above by this Court and conceded situation of the aforesaid proviso, it would be appropriate to set aside the notice dated 17.11.2022 as well as impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by 1st Appellate Authority a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
