JOY MATHEW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition challenge has been laid to Exts.P4, P4 (a), P4(b) & P4 (c) Assessment orders and recovery notices Exts.P8, P8(b) & P8(c) with other consequential prayers. In support of the aforementioned prayer, the writ petition is based on the facts that owing to the advent of the new GST regime in case petitioner who is registered with GST is of the view that, is not liable to pay tax for these period need not file GST returns showing nil, but the provisions of the Act envisages requirement of filing returns. The aforementioned difficulty has been agitated in the present writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner, a registered dealer on the roles of the 4th respondent was granted registration under the GST Act. It is engaged in the production and distribution of films and had been regularly filing returns without fail. For the period from July 2018, petitioner submitted the payment of GST under CGST and SGST instead of IGST. The State after filing of the returns on input tax credit adjustment of Rs. 24.70 lakhs there was a short fall of IGST and excess payment towards CGST and SGST was of sum of Rs.12.93 lakhs. On account of the fault committed by the petitioner to file returns in the month of July 2018 to March 2019, petitioner received notices dated 31 May 2019 in the form of GSTR-3A purportedly under Section 46 of KGST Act and CST Act. They were received on 1st July 2018 as evidenced vide P1 to P1 a (s) to c (2). The notices pertained to period August 2018, October 2018 and December 2018.

(3.) In response to the aforementioned, reply dated 25.9.2019 in accordance with the provisions of statute, was filed as evidenced from Ext.P3.