The Madras High Court set aside an order that denied a taxpayer’s application for waiver of GST interest and penalty under section 128A solely because the taxpayer did not file Form GST DRC-03A to link a DRC-03 payment with the demand. The matter returns to the tax officer for verification of payment status and fresh decision.
Tax officer must verify that the amount paid has not been debited for another liability and may allow post-facto filing of DRC-03A if the payment is available.
The Madras High Court quashed the SPL-07 rejection and remanded the case for a fresh, merit-based decision with mandated notice and timelines.
# Case summary
# What the court decided The court treated the failure to file Form DRC-03A as a procedural omission rather than a substantive bar to relief when the tax amount has already been paid. Before deciding whether to permit section 128A relief, the tax officer must verify the status of the amount paid: specifically, whether it remains available and has not been debited for any other liability. If the payment is intact as shown, the officer may allow the taxpayer to file DRC-03A post-facto and proceed to decide the waiver application on merits.
# Relevant legal and procedural references
# Practical implications for taxpayers and officers Taxpayers who have paid an assessed tax amount using DRC-03 but missed the separate DRC-03A step may still be able to pursue section 128A relief. The omission by itself should not lead to outright rejection. Officers must:
# Case procedural posture and next steps Form GST SPL-04 before the officer issues Form GST SPL-03 notice. If the taxpayer responds, the officer should decide the matter within three months of that response and must provide the taxpayer due notice before passing the fresh order.
# Case details
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court said the minimum penalty of ₹10,000 under Section 73(9) of the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Act cannot be automatically imposed for minor violations under Section 126(1). While quashing a GST assessment order passed without a hearing, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed t
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a 1.18 crore GST demand and granted retrospective ITC relief for the late filing of GSTR-3B. The applicant, Manash Ghosh, contested the legality and sustainability of the adjudication order dated 19 April 2024, passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act
The Calcutta High Court set aside a goods and services tax (GST) order that was passed without furnishing an adequate chance to be heard, as the SCN was given via the additional notices portal. The petitioners, M/s. Silicon Ceramics & Ors., submitted the writ petition and asked for condonation of delay in filing the ap
The Gujarat High Court has said that tax authorities cannot refuse ITC on a transaction on which tax was not levied initially. A bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati has given the ruling while setting aside a GST demand against Kor Chems over credit claimed on the acquisition of leasehold righ
The Madras High Court allowed the GST authorities to block an electronic credit ledger, including through a negative blocking entry, to recover tax dues, even where recovery proceedings arising from the assessment order have been stayed. While disposing of a writ petition submitted by Zigma Machinery & Equipment Soluti
The GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has said that electronic gift vouchers (EGVs) can be a mode of passing on a GST rate reduction, where they furnish customers with a direct monetary credit without conditions, expiry, or usage restrictions. The ruling came in proceedings involving Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd., accused of fa
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.