Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (8) TMI 732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rticle 226 of the Constitution of India, it would not be in the domain of this court to decide as to whether it is a normal credit or was an intentional or bonafide error. Since petitioner has already sought rectification vide request, Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.12930 of 2020 and Ext.P3 in other items, I am of the view that the 4th respondent has already received such request on consideration of the matter, in case it requires the petitioner or representative, take a call and thereafter, as per the circular and the procedure invoked, would send it to SGST network. The SGST network on consideration of the matter would take a call on such request by applying the principles of natural justice, i.e. affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h the erstwhile Kerala Value Added Tax, 2003, attempted to transit as per the transition provisions prescribed under Section 143 read with Rule 117(4) of the CGST Act and Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner filled the form TRAN-1 on 24.10.2017 within the prescribed period and in other connected matters, before the due date. The mistake while submitting the aforementioned form TRANS-1 was that, instead of filing it under the Central GST, it was filed under the State GST. Petitioner was not aware of such indication. However, the State GST Department, vide communication dated 26.12.2019 Ext.P2, informed the petitioner to file an explanatory reply within seven days, as the stock disclosed by them in TRAN-2 return of cement and steel was not eli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be allowed to avail input tax credit on goods held in stock on the appointed day. Office of the Accountant General, Kerala, in their order dated 24.12.2019, objected to the aforementioned SGST claim regarding the stock which were not supported by invoice or documents and referred to the letter Ext.P2 dated 26.02.2019 seeking explanation. It informed that as per the claim of input credit on Central Excise Portion there was no such registration under Central Excise Act and therefore the GST input credit could not be granted. The petitioner was given a chance to submit reply, failing which notice under Section 73(1) of 2017 would be issued. 3. Mr. A.Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, vide Ext.P5 in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that as per the circular, the proper officer would send such request to GST network. On consideration by the GST network, it would be sent to ITGRC. He further submits that, this case would not even fall within the provisions of Section 117(a) of 2017 Act, as the alleged error cannot be construed to falling within the expression 'rectification'. Petitioner ought to have filled FORM after understanding the provisions as the claim was not falling under the provisions of the SGST, but under the provisions of the CGST. Petitioner is thus required to seek refund of the credit along with the interest as per the provisions of the Act, and urged this court for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Dr.Tushara James, learned Government Pleade .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n within a period of six months. 8. It is submitted that the procedure adopted in other matters calling an explanation and reply of the petitioner, whereas, in the instant case, the revenue respondent straight away issued a demand by raising a show cause notice dated 28.01.2020 vide Ext.P2, which would reveal that there is no such reference of an opportunity or show cause notice and the demands includes not only of reversal of credit but also an element of interest, which comes to ₹ 3,20,863/-. Petitioner vide Ext.P6 has given reply but there is no such consideration. Thus the principles of audi alterm partem have not been strictly adhered to. 9. At this stage Mr.Sreejith submits that, it is not possible for the department to st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates