Vitta Samanvaya Samiti VS Union Of India

The petitioner’s counsel presented arguments seeking an extension of the deadline for submitting Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for the financial year 2019-20. They based their plea on Section 44 of the law. The petitioner contends that due to unforeseen circumstances or procedural complexities, they require additional time beyond the current deadline. This extension, they argue, would facilitate compliance and prevent any potential penalties or adverse consequences for non-compliance. The counsel emphasized the importance of fairness and practicality in administering tax regulations, particularly in light of any extenuating circumstances that may impede timely submission. They highlighted the need for the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request earnestly and grant the extension to alleviate undue burden and ensure procedural justice.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondents had previously extended the deadline for filing returns under Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C. This extension was communicated through a press release dated 30th December 2020 (Annexure-6), where the period for filing was extended until 28th February 2021. The counsel underscored that such extensions indicate a recognition by the authorities of the challenges taxpayers may face in meeting deadlines, and thus, they urged for a similar extension in the present case. By invoking Section 35(5) of the RGST Act and Rule 80 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the petitioner’s counsel emphasized the legal basis for seeking an extension, underscoring the need for procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in matters concerning tax compliance.

Moreover, the petitioner’s counsel asserted that according to the statute, an assessee has the right to file their forms within nine months from the conclusion of the relevant financial year. They further contended that the notified forms, namely Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C, were eventually made available for submission after considerable delay. This delay, they argued, impinged upon the petitioner’s ability to adhere to the original deadline. The counsel emphasized the importance of respecting the statutory rights of taxpayers and ensuring that they are not unduly disadvantaged due to administrative delays or procedural complexities. They stressed that granting an extension would align with the principles of equity and justice embedded in the legal framework governing taxation, thus urging the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request favorably.

Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted that as per the statute, taxpayers are entitled to file their forms within nine months from the conclusion of the relevant financial year. They pointed out a significant delay in the availability of the prescribed forms, GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C, which hindered the petitioner’s compliance with the original deadline. This delay, they argued, was beyond the petitioner’s control and resulted from administrative inefficiencies or procedural intricacies. Emphasizing the importance of upholding the statutory rights of taxpayers, the counsel underscored the need to prevent any undue disadvantage caused by such delays. They urged the respondents to consider the petitioner’s plea for an extension in light of the principles of fairness and justice inherent in the taxation framework. Granting an extension, they argued, would not only mitigate the adverse effects of administrative lapses but also uphold the integrity of the tax system by ensuring equitable treatment for all taxpayers.

In the legal realm, a significant contention has emerged from the learned counsel representing the petitioner. They argue against the validity of certain statutory provisions regarding the timeframe allotted for filing returns. However, the opposing stance maintains that these arguments lack merit due to the clear delineation of deadlines as per the Statute. According to this perspective, the authority to determine and enforce these deadlines rests solely with the statutory bodies. In essence, the crux of this debate revolves around the interpretation and application of statutory powers in the context of filing returns.

In the legal matter at hand, the arguments put forth by the petitioner’s counsel are deemed untenable by the court. This is primarily because the timeframe for submitting the return is stipulated by the law, and only the statutory authority possesses the jurisdiction to extend this period. Consequently, the court is disinclined to entertain the current writ application. Instead, the petitioner is advised, if they wish, to pursue further extension through the appropriate statutory channels.

Should the petitioner choose to make such a representation, the court expresses hope and trust that it will be promptly considered and resolved.

Ultimately, the court refrains from entertaining the present writ application, leading to its dismissal.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: