Bidyut Autotech Private Limited & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

GST Update/ 2026-27/0064

No Wilful Evasion Where GSTR-3B Error Was Subsequently Corrected Through GSTR-9

Bidyut Autotech Private Limited & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Calcutta High Court | 26 November 2025 | WPA 12637 of 2025

Case Details

The petitioners were dealers in motor vehicles. During FY 2017-18, they purchased motor vehicles from suppliers and paid GST along with CESS. The CESS paid on their purchases was reflected in GSTR-2A. The petitioners also collected CESS from their customers on outward supplies. However, they believed that they had sufficient accumulated CESS on their inward supplies and therefore did not report the CESS collected from customers in their GSTR-3B returns.
Later, while finalising their books of accounts, the petitioners realised the mistake, which was pointed out by their Chartered Accountant. They then disclosed the entire CESS amount in their annual return in GSTR-9. The petitioners stated that the earlier non-disclosure was revenue neutral because they had CESS ITC available on their purchases.
The GST Department subsequently issued a notice under Section 74 alleging non-payment of CESS of Rs. 44,71,625. An order was passed determining tax liability of Rs. 41,31,946 along with interest and penalty, resulting in an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,28,26,999.

Arguments Before the Court

The petitioners argued that there was no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. According to them, the mistake in GSTR-3B had already been corrected by reporting the CESS in GSTR-9. They also submitted that they had CESS ITC available on inward supplies and that the differential amount had been paid. Therefore, the initial non-disclosure did not cause any revenue loss.
The appellate authority accepted that there was no wilful misstatement, suppression or fraud and accordingly changed the proceedings from Section 74 to Section 73. However, it did not give effect to the GSTR-9 disclosure or the petitioners’ claim regarding the accumulated CESS ITC.
The petitioners relied upon various judicial decisions, including Ankit Kumar Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals v. State Tax Officer, and Bisweswar Midhya v. Joint Commissioner. The State, on the other hand, argued that the GSTR-9 could not be relied upon because it was filed beyond the prescribed period and also pointed out that the decision in Ankit Kumar Agarwal had specifically stated that it should not be treated as a precedent.

Decision of the Calcutta High Court

The High Court held that the tax authorities could not completely ignore the GSTR-9 filed by the petitioners. The Court noted that the petitioners had claimed that they had not availed the CESS ITC available on their inward supplies. If such ITC was ignored and the entire CESS collected on outward supplies was demanded, it could result in taxation without properly considering the actual tax position. The Court referred to Article 265 of the Constitution, which provides that no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law.
The Court also considered the issue of the delayed filing of GSTR-9. It held that the restriction introduced through the amendment to Section 44(2) by the Finance Act, 2023, effective from 1 October 2023, did not apply to the petitioners because their GSTR-9 had been filed on 28 August 2023. The Court further observed that, before the amendment, there was no complete prohibition against filing the annual return after the prescribed date.
Although the Court accepted that Ankit Kumar Agarwal could not be treated as a precedent, it held that its decision in the present case could independently be reached on the basis of the applicable law and Article 265. The Court directed that proper consideration must be given to the GSTR-9 disclosure and the differential amount claimed to have been paid by the petitioners. These factors could make the original non-disclosure revenue neutral.

Final Outcome

The Calcutta High Court set aside the appellate order dated 6 February 2025 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law, particularly taking into account the GSTR-9 disclosure and the claimed differential payment.

Comments

GST Update/ 2026-27/0064

No Wilful Evasion Where GSTR-3B Error Was Subsequently Corrected Through GSTR-9

Case Details

Arguments Before the Court

Decision of the Calcutta High Court

Final Outcome

Opinion

Key Takeaway

Post a Comment

Query