The law is designed to maximize the likelihood that taxpayers will furnish their returns on time by incorporating various measures. Likewise, section 62(1) of the CGST Act was created. On the same hand Law wants to be reasonable with taxpayers so they don’t face undue hardships.
In a similar vein, Section 62(1) of the CGST Act was enacted to uphold fairness towards taxpayers, preventing them from facing unnecessary hardships while complying with tax laws. Compliance with Section 62(1) exempts tax officers from serving show cause notices under Section 73 or 74.
In a recent case, a best judgment order was issued, and the taxpayer furnished the returns beyond the prescribed 30-day period applicable to the relevant period. The issue brought before the court was whether this delay should be excused. The court noted that under Section 62(2), the fundamental right of taxpayers to furnish returns should not be denied if there are valid reasons to justify the delay. Nevertheless, rather than submitting a condonation application, the taxpayer opted to contest the assessment order of Section 62(1), arguing that although the returns were furnished beyond the prescribed time limit of Section 62(2), the assessment orders should be nullified. Consequently, the court directed the taxpayer to submit a condonation application, and the tax officer was instructed to consider it on sufficient grounds.
The current case pertains to the period between December 2022 and February 2023. Effective October 1, 2023, the law was amended to offer greater relief to taxpayers. The basic filing time frame was extended from 30 days to 60 days, with an additional 60-day extension available upon payment of additional fees. This amendment represents an additional measure by lawmakers to enhance the ease of doing business for taxpayers.
| SW Point of View: From a legal perspective, the decision serves as a reminder that while compliance is essential, compassion and understanding should also find a place in the realm of taxation. While adhering to tax rules is imperative, the legal landscape acknowledges the human element. Mistakes happen, circumstances evolve, and the law, in its essence, should allow for correction of genuine mistakes. |
Source: 2024 (1) TMI 281 – MADRAS HIGH COURT
Aagam Jain and Amandeep, SW India
