- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Further Extension of Annual GST Returns FY 2019-20
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Further Extension of Annual GST Returns FY 2019-20 The Bombay High Court (HC) on 26 February 2021, in the case titled Goods and Services Tax Practitioners' Association & Anr. (Petitioners) v. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary & Ors. (Respondents) dismissed a plea seeking further extension of due date for filing annual GST returns...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Further Extension of Annual GST Returns FY 2019-20
The Bombay High Court (HC) on 26 February 2021, in the case titled Goods and Services Tax Practitioners' Association & Anr. (Petitioners) v. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary & Ors. (Respondents) dismissed a plea seeking further extension of due date for filing annual GST returns for the Financial Year (FY) 2019-20.
The HC bench comprising of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Milind N. Jadhav was hearing a petition wherein the petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to extend the periodicity of filing of annual returns in the State of Maharashtra until complete lock-down is lifted or until the COVID-19 pandemic situation improves completely. The last date of furnishing such an annual return for the FY 2019-20 was till 28 February 2021.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Custom urged the assesses, whose aggregate annual turnover for the FY 2019-20 is over Rs. 2 crore, to file annual returns before 28 February 2021.
It was further stated that if they didn't comply with the due date, they would have to pay a late fee. The late fee is Rs 200 per day of delay, subject to a maximum cap of 0.25 percent of the company's total turnover in the respective State/Union Territory.
The Petitioners further sought before the HC a direction to the respondents to extend periodicity of limitation of filing of annual returns for the year 2019-20 in the State of Maharashtra under Section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with Rule 80 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, (CGST Rules) every registered person is required to file an annual return for every FY in the electronic form before 31 December following the end of such a FY.
The petitioners contended that as the pandemic is not over yet and the number of infected people with COVID-19 is increasing rapidly, an extension should be given considering the present situation.
They further averred that the lock-down imposed in the State of Maharashtra has not yet been completely withdrawn and that several areas in the State have seen fresh lock-downs in different forms in the recent past.
The HC stated that it was not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners 'at this eleventh hour'. It noted that the fact that the initial due date of 31 December 2020 was extended to 28 February 2021 and now it cannot be extended more.
The bench noted that the central government has already made filing of annual return optional for businesses with annual turnover up to Rs 2 crore for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20.
The Court observed, "We find from the written instructions dated 25.02.2021 that vide notification No.77 of 2020 - Central Tax dated 15.10.2020 filing of annual return in the prescribed form for businesses with annual turnover up to Rs. 2 crore has been made optional for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 201920; and for businesses with annual turnover up to Rs. 5 crore filing of the prescribed form for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 has been waived off vide notification No.79/2000 - Central Tax dated 15.10.2020."
The HC while dismissing the petition stated that "We also take note of the fact that it is the professional body of practitioners who are before us and not any individual."