2020 (6) TMI 381 - HC - GST

Permission to petitioner to file revision of GST TRAN-1 - section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - while the case of the petitioner is that mistake committed was procedural the court considers appropriate not to entertain the petition at this stage - HELD THAT - Whether there is a procedural lapse or otherwise is the aspects to be gone into and decided by the competent authority to which the petitioner has already addressed communication way back in August and September 2019. The authority of the respondents department has not decided to respond to the same so far. It is only after the decision is rendered by the authorities it will be open for the petitioner to take a further legal recourse in accordance with law - While not entertaining this petition and not touching the merit part of the case of the petitioner the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are directed to respond to the communication of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 seeking directions to file revision of GST TRAN-1 and allow Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim. Alleged procedural mistake in filling form GST TRAN 01 affecting ITC claim. Respondent authorities' failure to respond to petitioner's communications. Court's decision on whether to entertain the petition at this stage.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking directions to the respondents to permit the revision of GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually and allow the credit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ?16,61,040 for goods held in stock as claimed under section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed that a procedural mistake led to the ITC not being claimed as intended.

Issue 2: The petitioner contended that the mistake in filling form GST TRAN 01, where the amount was incorrectly mentioned as 'Nil' instead of ?16,61,040, was due to a bona fide error by their Accountant. The petitioner argued that the right granted under section 140 of the CGST Act could not be denied due to a procedural lapse, citing a previous court decision supporting this stance.

Issue 3: The court heard submissions from both parties and noted that despite communications sent by the petitioner to the authorities in August and September 2019, there was no response. The court considered whether to entertain the petition at that stage or allow the competent authority to decide on the procedural aspects, emphasizing the need for the authorities to respond to the petitioner's communication.

Issue 4: The court decided not to entertain the petition immediately, directing respondent Nos. 6 to 8 to respond to the petitioner's communication within four weeks. The court clarified that the disposal of the petition did not prevent the petitioner from approaching any authority or the court in the future based on the decision of the competent authority.

In conclusion, the court's judgment focused on the procedural aspects of the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit, emphasizing the need for the authorities to respond to the petitioner's communication before further legal recourse could be pursued. The court's decision highlighted the importance of addressing procedural lapses through the appropriate channels before seeking judicial intervention.