9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1245 - HC - GSTRectification of mistake in GST TRAN-1 of the petitioner s declaration - transitional credit - post GST Regime - main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner while putting his Form has committed an error - whether the petitioner has a prima facie case for consideration? HELD THAT - High Court of Madras, in the case of MSR Iron and Steel Industries India Private Limited and others v. Joint Commissioner of Sale Taxes, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore and others 2018 (9) TMI 543 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that A circular has been already issued on 03.04.2018 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, by setting up a Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address certain grievance of the Assesses, which contemplates the appointment of a Nodal Officer to address the problem faced by the tax payers due to the problem faced by such people in the GST portal during the transitional period. The GST Council is directed to reconsider since the time is extended - the matter is remitted back to the GST Council to reconsider the case taking into consideration the case cited - petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-credit of claimed GST due to form error. 2. Petitioner's typographical error in Form TRAN-1. 3. Administrative and technical responses to the petitioner's issue. 4. Legal precedents from other High Courts regarding similar GST form errors. Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-credit of claimed GST due to form error: The petitioner challenged the action of the opposite parties for not giving credit claimed under the new GST regime. The petitioner made an error in filling the form by entering details in "7d-Stock of goods" instead of "7a-Duties and Taxes on inputs." Despite the incorrect entry, the Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Commissionerate communicated the issue to the Directorate General of Systems & Data Management, recommending the revision of the form TRAN-1. 2. Petitioner's typographical error in Form TRAN-1: The petitioner contended that the error was purely typographical and provided evidence of attempts to rectify the mistake before the deadline. The petitioner received various communications indicating the issue was recognized but unresolved due to the closure of the TRAN-1 window and lack of amendment options on the portal. 3. Administrative and technical responses to the petitioner's issue: Several communications were made to GST authorities, including a letter from the Joint Director (GST) and an email from the Vice President-Finance, requesting resolution of the issue. The GST Helpdesk acknowledged the problem but cited the closure of the TRAN-1 window as a barrier to resolution. 4. Legal precedents from other High Courts regarding similar GST form errors: The petitioner cited several High Court decisions to support their case: - High Court of Gujarat (Privi Organics India Ltd. Vs. Union of India): Recognized the need for further examination of typographical errors in TRAN-1 forms and suggested that such errors should fall within the extended time for declarations. - High Court of Madras-Madurai Bench (Tara Exports v. Union of India): Granted relief for genuine attempts to file TRAN-1, recognizing the procedural nature of deadlines and the importance of substantive input credits. - High Court of Kerala (Leena P. Nair v. GST Council, New Delhi): Directed the GST Network to provide facilities for completing TRAN-1 filings due to IT glitches. - High Court of Karnataka (M/s. Pragati Automotion Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India): Directed the Nodal Officer to consider complaints and facilitate the correction of errors in TRAN-1 forms. - High Court of Bombay (O/E/N India Ltd. & another v. Union of India): Allowed rectification of TRAN-1 forms after verifying the bona fides of claims. Conclusion: Taking into consideration the views of other High Courts, the Orissa High Court directed the GST Council to reconsider the petitioner's case, acknowledging the typographical error and subsequent attempts to rectify it. The matter was remitted back to the GST Council for reconsideration in light of the precedents and the extended time for filing corrections. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
