9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 903 - HC - GSTSeeking permission to the petitioner to submit Form GST ITC-01 after due date as there was error in the portal on the due date - HELD THAT - Petitioner was bonafide and prompt in making complaint to the GSTN on failing to submit form GST ITC-01 just after the prescribed date i.e. 12.08.2018. In that event, as per the petitioner, he loses ITC to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lakh if such switch over is not permitted. Proviso to Rule 40(1)(b) of JGST Rules, 2017, brought into force with effect from 01.07.2017 vide Notification dated 18.08.2017 bearing S.O. No. 64, issued by the Commercial Taxes Department, does confer the power upon the Commissioner of State Tax to extend the time limit - Respondents have interpreted the proviso as being a power conferred upon the Commissioner, State Tax for extension of time in a class of cases in general and not confined to the individual taxpayer, though no such restriction is apparently made out in the enabling provisions. The petitioner should approach the Commissioner, State Taxes with a request for extension of time limit for submission of Form GST ITC-01, which may be considered in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Petitioner's request to switch from Composition Scheme to a regular dealer due to technical glitches in filing Form GST ITC-01 within the due date. 2. Interpretation of Rule 40(1)(b) of J.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 regarding extension of time limit by the Commissioner, State Tax. 3. Consideration of the petitioner's request for extension of time limit for submission of Form GST ITC-01. Issue 1: The petitioner sought permission to switch from the Composition Scheme to a regular dealer after facing technical issues in filing Form GST ITC-01 within the due date. The petitioner approached the court for direction to allow the submission of the form post the deadline due to portal errors. The State Tax Authorities acknowledged the technical glitches but emphasized that the portal was functioning fine during the specified period. The petitioner claimed to have made sincere attempts to submit the form but faced portal rejection. The court noted the borderline situation and the petitioner's prompt complaint to GSTN post the deadline. The court acknowledged the power of the Commissioner, State Tax to extend the time limit under Rule 40(1)(b) of J.G.S.T. Rules, 2017. Issue 2: The interpretation of Rule 40(1)(b) of J.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 was crucial in this case. The rule provides for a time limit extension by the Commissioner, State Tax for filing Form GST ITC-01. The respondents argued that the power to extend the time limit was not restricted to individual cases but applied generally. However, the court highlighted that the rule did not explicitly limit the extension power to a specific class of cases. The court advised the petitioner to approach the Commissioner, State Taxes for an extension request, to be considered in accordance with the law. Issue 3: The court directed the petitioner to seek an extension of the time limit for submitting Form GST ITC-01 from the Commissioner, State Taxes. The court clarified that its observations should not be construed as a definitive interpretation of Rule 40(1)(b) at that stage. If the extension is granted, the petitioner must submit the form to switch from the Composition Scheme to the Normal Taxpayer Scheme within the specified time frame. The Commissioner, State Tax was instructed to decide on the petitioner's representation within four weeks from the date of the court order. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Jharkhand High Court highlights the issues surrounding the petitioner's request to switch schemes, the interpretation of relevant rules, and the court's directions regarding the extension of the time limit for form submission.
|
