2021 (3) TMI 58 - HC - GST

Input tax credit - transitional credit - entering the details in wrong column of GST-Tran-1 form - 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 - HELD THAT - As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the factual matrix obtaining in TARA EXPORTS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COUNCIL, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE CENTRAL GST OFFICER AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE 2018 (9) TMI 1474 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is quite different from the case on hand. In Tara Exports, the dealer had not even filed TRAN-1 in time. After missing the bus, he came to the Court seeking relief on the ground that his vested right cannot be taken away. That is not the contention urged before me. The petitioner had filed FORM GST TRAN-1 in time. His only grievance is that he is being denied the benefit of input tax credit for having entered the details in wrong column. Therefore, I am of the view that grant of interim stay by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Tara Exports' case cannot be put against the petitioner. The third 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 - The second respondent is directed to forward the petitioner's application to the third respondent forthwith and without any delay. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Incorrect entry of details in GST TRAN-1 form leading to denial of input tax credit.
2. Failure to rectify the mistake within the specified time frame.
3. Interpretation of Rule 120A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
4. Comparison with similar cases and judicial precedents.
5. Quashing of the impugned communication and directing further action.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a two-wheeler dealer, erroneously entered details in column 7(d) instead of 7(a) of the GST TRAN-1 form, resulting in the denial of input tax credit under the new GST regime. Despite having invoices to support tax payments, the petitioner was not given the credit due to the incorrect entry.

2. Upon realizing the mistake, the petitioner submitted requests for rectification to the jurisdictional authorities, emphasizing the inadvertent nature of the error. Despite positive recommendations from the Assistant Commissioner, no further action was taken, leading to the filing of the writ petition seeking relief.

3. The respondents contended that the petitioner had missed the deadline for revision specified in Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017, and therefore, could not avail further opportunities for correction. The standing counsel highlighted the importance of timely revisions and cited a previous court order to support their argument for dismissal of the petition.

4. The judge differentiated the current case from a previous judgment, emphasizing that the petitioner had filed the TRAN-1 form on time and was solely seeking correction of the entry error, unlike the situation in the cited case. Reference was made to a Delhi High Court decision where inadvertent errors in similar forms were considered for rectification, providing a precedent for addressing genuine mistakes.

5. In light of the arguments and precedents, the judge quashed the impugned communication and directed the authorities to process the petitioner's application promptly. The third respondent was instructed to verify the details provided and grant the relief sought by the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of the order, ultimately allowing the writ petition without costs.