The authorities must avoid a blinkered view while adjudicating/assessing the tax liability of a dealer under the Act. The judgment of the Apex Court in Bharti Airtel’s case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case.Ĥ. A perusal of the same makes it apparent that ITC, which is admittedly available to the petitioner has been entered under the wrong column the material on record also discloses that the said errors are entirely bona fide and inadvertent and that a lenient view is required to be taken, particularly since the tax periods involved relate to the very first year of the GST regime. The copies of the returns submitted / filed by the petitioner clearly demonstrate and evidence the innocuousness of the errors committed by the petitioner.ģ. In the instant case, the petitioner appears to have entered certain figures in the wrong column of his GSTR 3-B returns for the months of July 2017 and March 2018 i.e., during the very first financial year after the introduction of GST. There can be no dispute regarding the fact that the introduction of GST required a major overhaul of the indirect tax regime, including the number and formats of statutory returns that were to be filed and that it was expected that dealers across the country would take a reasonable amount of time to readjust to the new system.Ģ. Some important remarks made by the Court:ġ. Landmark ruling of Karnataka High Court in the case of Orient Traders-2023 (1) TMI 838 permitting the petitioner to make the necessary changes to its GSTR 3-B returns for the months of July 2017 and March 2018.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |