Joy Mathew Proprietor, Abra Film International vs. Union Of India And Others
(Kerala High Court, Kerala)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Joy Mathew Proprietor, Abra Film International
Union Of India And Others
Kerala High Court
Jul 6, 2020
Order No.
WP(C).No.13493 OF 2020(J)
TR Citation
2020 (7) TR 3264
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code


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 ₹ 24.70 lakhs there was a short fall of IGST and excess payment towards CGST and SGST was of sum of ₹ 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.

4. Mr. K.I Mayinkutty Mather, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent ignoring the reply passed the assessment order impugned order aforementioned and recovery notice are totally in derogation of Section 62 (1) of the Act. He further submits that as per the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 62 of the GST Act, if on receipt of the assessment orders under Section 62(1), the assessee files returns within a period 30 days of the of the said assessment orders, the assessment orders issued are automatically recalled. Petitioner on receipt of Exts.P1 to P1 (c) notices filed assessment vide Ext.P6 series on different dates, but within thirty days as Exts.P4 was dispatched on 19.9.2019, received on 27.9.2019.

5. Apparently, the returns filed within time as evidenced from screenshots Ext.P7.

6. For the reasons best known 4th respondent issued recovery notices Ext.P8 which are without adherence to sub Section 62(2) of the GST Act. The question of raising demand could not arise qua the returns in respect of the period referred to was not exigible to tax.

7. Issue notice before admission. Dr. Thushara James, learned Government Pleader accepts notice and submits that apparently there appears to be a compliance of provisions of the Act, but on perusal of Ext.P7 screen shots, it cannot be ruled out, petitioner purportedly complied with the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 62 and is not averse of the re-adjudication of the matter, in case the matter is revisited.

8. I have heard Counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. On a plain reading of Section 62 (2), extracted in paragraph 18 of the writ petition which I need not reproduce it again, it is not in doubt that whenever an assessee fails to file a return an assessing officer is required to sent the assessment order in terms of provisions Section 62 (1) of the Act but, there is a caveat in terms of provision under Section 62 (2) where on receipt of such information, as noticed above, was received by the petitioner on 27.10 2019, petitioner filed the returns on 25.10.2019 within 30 days. There could not have been an occasion for issuing of recovery notices as assessment orders Ext.P4 were in law required be withdrawn. There appears an apparent error and omission on the part of the revenue in not adhering to the fact referred (supra). For the reasons aforementioned impugned recovery notices Ext.P8 are set aside. Writ petition is allowed. 4th respondent is directed to look into the returns filed as evidenced from Ext.P6 and P7 and take a call on sustainability of Ext.P4. This exercise shall be undertaken after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • joy mathew proprietor abra film international vs union of india and others kerala high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096