News

  • Home
  • News
  • Assessee was required to file necessary GST TRAN-1. While filing said Form, instead of entering details under column 7(a), assessee erroneously entered details against column 7(d) which would apply only in cases of stock of goods not supported by invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax. However, assessee was very much having necessary invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax. Since assessee did not correctly enter details, assessee was not given consequential credit under new GST regime. After assessee realized same, it submitted request before Assistant Commissioner to do needful. Assessee furnished all necessary details. However, Assistant Commissioner informed assessee that it was not possible for them to consider assessee's request in absence of any specific Court order. Whether since assessee had filed FORM GST TRAN-1 in time and his only grievance was that he was being denied benefit of input tax credit for having entered details in wrong column, Assistant Commissioner was to be directed to accept said request of assessee and do needful. - vide decision of High Court of Madras in Ram Auto v. Commissioner of Central Taxes & Central Excise, Madurai.

Assessee was required to file necessary GST TRAN-1. While filing said Form, instead of entering details under column 7(a), assessee erroneously entered details against column 7(d) which would apply only in cases of stock of goods not supported by invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax. However, assessee was very much having necessary invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax. Since assessee did not correctly enter details, assessee was not given consequential credit under new GST regime. After assessee realized same, it submitted request before Assistant Commissioner to do needful. Assessee furnished all necessary details. However, Assistant Commissioner informed assessee that it was not possible for them to consider assessee's request in absence of any specific Court order. Whether since assessee had filed FORM GST TRAN-1 in time and his only grievance was that he was being denied benefit of input tax credit for having entered details in wrong column, Assistant Commissioner was to be directed to accept said request of assessee and do needful. - vide decision of High Court of Madras in Ram Auto v. Commissioner of Central Taxes & Central Excise, Madurai.

Facts of the case:

  1. The petitioner is a dealer in two wheelers. Assessee was registered under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner was having input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 4,85,684/-.
  2. Following the introduction of GST regime, transition and migrations from the earlier system had to be made. The petitioner like any other dealer was required to file the necessary GST TRAN-1.
  3. While filing the said Form, instead of entering the details under column 7(a), the petitioner erroneously entered the details against column 7(d). The column 7(d) would apply only in cases of stock of goods not supported by invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax.
  4. The petitioner was very much having the necessary invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax. Since the petitioner did not correctly enter the details, the petitioner was not given the consequential credit under the new GST regime.
  5. After the petitioner realized the same, the petitioner submitted request vide letter dated 17-10-2018. The petitioner pointed out that the mistake committed by them was purely inadvertent. As a result, the petitioner was not able to adjust the claimed credit amount against their present liability.
  6. Therefore, the petitioner called upon the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Dindigul to do the needful and necessary details were furnished by the petitioner.
  7. The details furnished by the petitioner were duly verified and vide communication dated 17-5-2019, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner gave a finding that taxpayer's request was genuine and that the mistake committed by them was unintentional and recommended their case to GSTN for consideration.
    Even after such a positive recommendation was given by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner nothing further took place. Therefore, the petitioner reiterated their request vide letter dated 18-12-2019 and 30-1-2020.
    In response thereto, the impugned communication came to be issued. The jurisdictional Commissioner/first respondent informed the petitioner that it is not possible for them to consider the petitioner's request in the absence of any specific Court order. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.
    The request in the writ petition is contested by the respondents. The primary stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was specifically given time till 27-12-2017
    to set right any mistake that might have been committed by them. The petitioner had failed to avail the opportunity granted by the respondents.
    The learned standing counsel would place reliance on Rule 120A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The said provision states that the every registered person who has submitted a declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time period specified in rules may revise such declaration once and submit the revised declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 electronically on the common portal within the time period specified in the said rules. The respondents called for dismissal of the writ petition.
    The learned counsel for the petitioner drew to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3798 of 2019 (M/s.Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others). In the said case also, the dealer had committed an inadvertent error in showing the available stock of goods in column 7(d) of the Form instead of 7(a) of the Form.
  8. The Delhi High Court held that although the system provided for revision of a return, the deadline for making the revision coincided with the last date for filing the return i.e. 27th December, 2017. Thus, such facility was rendered impractical and meaningless.

Ruling:
The High Court of Madras held the case as follows:

  1. In this view of the matter, the communication impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The respondent is directed to forward the petitioner's application to another respondent forthwith and without any delay.
  2. The another respondent will verify the correctness of the averments set out in communication of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner of Central Taxes & Central Excise, Madurai vide C.No.IV/16/48/2018-Tech, dated 17-5-2019.
  3. Upon the another respondent being satisfied with the correctness of the same, the another respondent will grant the relief as sought for by the writ petitioner. The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed.

https://www.taxmann.com/preview-document?categoryName=gst-new&fileId=101010000000198537&subCategory=caselaws

© Copyright Themesflat 2018. All Rights Reserved.