Bombay High Court refused to extend deadline for filing GST returns

Bombay High Court refused to extend deadline for filing GST returns

Petitioners had stated that due to the pandemic, the majority of traders and tax practitioners had not resumed their daily business due to workforce shortage and no relief in local train services

The Bombay High Court (HC) on 26 February 2021 dealt to blow to those seeking extension till June-end to file their GST return for the financial year 2019-2020.

The bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Milind N. Jadhav dismissed a plea seeking further extension of the due date which had already been extended from 31 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 because of the prevailing conditions.

The bench was hearing a petition by the Goods and Services Tax Practitioners' Association. The petition sought HC direction to the respondents to extend the periodicity of filing of annual returns in the State of Maharashtra until complete lock-down was lifted or until the COVID-19 pandemic situation improved.

The Petitioners further sought 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 read with Rule 80 of the Central Goods and Services Tax 2017 up to 30th June 2021.

They had taken a stand that Maharashtra was still one of the worst affected states in India and had been witnessing a surge in new cases being reported. Given fresh Covid-19 guidelines issued in Mumbai fresh lockdown in some districts with the sealing of buildings, the majority of traders and tax practitioners were unable to not started their daily business due to workforce shortage and lack of relief in local train services.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh submitted before the HC bench that the Supreme Court in February 2020 had stayed a portion of the Rajasthan High Court's order which had extended the deadline for submitting returns for 2017-18.

The Court was also informed that such an extension couldn't be granted by the State of Maharashtra, since a state government lacked a say in the decision which was applicable for the entire country under one nation, one tax regime.

The Court, at the outset, observed that it was not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners "at this eleventh hour" and took note of the two-month extension already granted for the purpose earlier. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.