9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1322 - HC - GSTDenial of ITC - marking wrong place of supply in annual return as 'other territory' instead of 'Kerala' - HELD THAT - Having considered the judgments of the Madras High court in DEEPA TRADERS VERSUS PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, SUPERINTENDENT OF GST, CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (GSTN) , NEW DELHI 2023 (3) TMI 628 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and M/S. AKSHAYA BUILDING SOLUTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. K. SENTHILKUMAR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE IV DIVISION, COIMBATORE 2023 (12) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and also taking into consideration of the fact that the alleged mistake was in the year immediately after the introduction of GST, the petitioner can be granted relief as was done by the Madras High Court in the judgment referred to above - In Deepa Traders the Madras High Court held ' In the absence of an enabling mechanism, I am of the view that assessees should not be prejudiced from availing credit that they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should be in a position to rectify the same, particularly in the absence of an effective, enabling mechanism under statute.' This writ petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P3 order in original and consequential recovery notices namely Exts.P4 and P7 and directing the competent among the respondents to permit the petitioner to resubmit the annual return for the year 2017-18 in GSTR 9 by correcting the mistakes allegedly committed by the petitioner - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Denial of input tax credit for marking wrong place of supply in annual return for the year 2017-18. 2. Interpretation of mistake in filing details related to credit under GST. 3. Relief and rectification of errors in annual return filing. Analysis: 1. The petitioner was denied input tax credit for the year 2017-18 due to mistakenly marking the place of supply as 'other territory' instead of 'Kerala' in the annual return. The petitioner argued that being the year immediately after the introduction of GST, they should not be penalized for such inadvertent errors. Reference was made to judgments of the Madras High Court in similar cases to support the contention. 2. The Government Pleader contended that the demand notice issued to the petitioner was valid as the petitioner had indeed marked the place of supply incorrectly. It was emphasized that this error led to the non-receipt of tax due to the State of Kerala. The Government Pleader requested the court to allow the filing of a detailed counter affidavit if relief was to be granted to the petitioner. 3. After considering arguments from both sides and examining the judgments of the Madras High Court in analogous cases, the court held in favor of the petitioner. Citing the judgments in Deepa Traders and Akshaya Building Solution, the court acknowledged the inadvertent nature of the errors made by the petitioners. The court agreed that in the absence of an enabling mechanism, assessees should not be prejudiced from claiming legitimate credits. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioner to rectify the errors in the annual return filing and resubmit the correct details within a specified timeframe. 4. The court further referenced the Madras High Court's decisions in Deepa Traders and Akshaya Building Solution to emphasize the importance of rectifying errors to ensure that legitimate credits are not lost. Accordingly, the court set aside the original order denying input tax credit and directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to resubmit the annual return for the year 2017-18 with corrected details. The court clarified that any future demands on the petitioner could still be raised by the authority even after the fresh return filing. 5. To facilitate the resubmission of the annual return, the court directed the competent authority to enable the petitioner to file GSTR 9 for the year 2017-18. Additionally, considering the provisions of Section 17(5) of the IGST Act, the court suo motu impleaded the Goods and Services Tax Network as an additional respondent to ensure necessary actions by the GST Network in processing the corrected return. The writ petition was disposed of in line with the above directions and decisions.
|
