Payment of Interest for Delayed Filing of GST Returns: Kerala HC dismisses Review Petition in absence of Error Apparent on Face of Record [Read Order]

The Kerala High Court dismissed the review petition in the absence of error apparent on face of record in the matter relating to the payment of interest for delayed filing of GST returns. The Court after hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties, vide the final Judgment and Order under review, held that in cases where the return were filed on or before 31.03.2022 and turnover tax was cleared on or before 30.04.2022 by the FL3 licensees, for the period from 22.05.2020 to 21.12.2020 and from 15.06.2021 to 25.09.2021 for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, they would not be liable to pay interest for delayed filing of the returns and payment of turnover tax @ 5% on their parcel sales authorised by the Government during the Covid lock down period.

A. Muhammed Rafiq, Special Government Pleader, submitted that there has occurred an error apparent on the face of the record which occassioned the review petitioners to seek review of the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by this Court. The counsel further submitted that the reduction of tax from 10% to 5% was not limited only in respect of the sale effected by the Bar attached Hotels during the Covid lock down period but, the exemption was granted for the period from 2014-15 to 2015-16 as per the Cabinet Note placed on record as Annexure (A) by which the decision was taken to amend Section 7A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

K. I. Mayankutty Mather, the Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Annexure (A) document placed on record i.e. the note put up before the Cabinet for consideration regarding the reduction of turnover tax for the period during lock down from 22.05.2020 to 21.12.2020 and from 15.06.2021 to 25.09.2021 is specific that the Bar attached Hotels and shops were required to pay 5% of the turnover tax as is applicable in respect of the retail outlets run by the Beverages Corporation.

A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “I have considered the submissions. Review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there an is error apparent on the face of the record. This Court has considered each and every document and the submissions while rendering the Judgment dated 30.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No.3870 of 2023 and connected matters. Furthermore, these documents were not part of the pleadings. Review does not mean rehearing or appeal. There has to be finality to a litigation.” “This Court, based on the submissions, documents and evidences, has rendered the Judgment sought to be reviewed. Therefore, I find no error apparent on the face of the record which warrants this Court to reconsider this Judgment under review. There is no substance in this review petition and the same is hereby dismissed” the Court held.

Leave a Reply