2019 (2) TMI 762 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 44 (Tri. – Chennai) – Demand of late fee – failure to file ST-3 returns within due time – appellants submit that they could not file the returns electronically due to system failure and they had submitted the returns manually – Held that:- Though, the appellants were not able to upload the returns electronically, they have filed the returns manually – Though, it is stated in para 10 that the appellants have not produced any evidence that they have taken the problem to the department, I find that the appellants have produced screen shots of the returns filed to the department, which bears the signature of the officer concerned. The department having acknowledged the manually filed returns, ought to have taken steps to help or assist the appellants to solve the problem. Thus, the appellants cannot be found fault in the present case for the cause of delay in filing the returns.
–
The demand of late fee cannot be sustained for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mand of late fee was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellants, the Learned Advocate Shri S. Kannapan appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that for the relevant period in dispute there was difficulty in uploading the ST-3 returns electronically. He had intimated the department about the difficulties faced by them. The appellants filed the returns manually and also produced copies of the acknowledged returns before the adjudicating authority. However, authorities below did not accede to the contentions of the appellants. The demand of late fee in respect of periods from 7/2012 to 9/2012, 10/2012 to 3/2013 and 4/2013 to 9/2013 was upheld. The delay, if any was only to difficulty in uploading the returns electronically and this was only due to the system failure, which was on account of the facts beyond the control of the appellants. 3. The Learned Authorised Representative Shri B. Balamurugan supported
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
said documents bear the signature of the Superintendent of the jurisdictional authority. It can be thus seen that the appellants had filed returns manually, which was acknowledged by the department. Though, the appellants were not able to upload the returns electronically, they have filed the returns manually. Interestingly, in para 10 of the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand of late fee for the periods of 10/2011 to 3/2012 and 4/2012 to 6/2012. But, however, the late fee demand for the periods 7/2012 to 9/2012, 10/2012 to 3/2013 and 4/2013 to 9/2013 has been upheld. On perusal of para 10 of the impugned order, I do not find any reasoning made by the lower authority as to why the late fee with respect to the period 10/2011 to 3/2012 and 4/2012 to 6/2012 was allowed. Though, it is stated in para 10 that the appellants have not produced any evidence that they have taken the problem to the department, I find that the appellants have produced screen shots of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =