9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed to deny the ITC claimed by the petitioner, which will undoubtedly lead to a serious revenue loss, unlike in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. ORS. [ 2021 (11) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT] , where ITC availment was merely postponed as a result of the judgment. It is therefore clear that no reliance can be placed upon the said judgment by the respondents as sought to be contended by them. In the instant case, the respondents have, in the absence of a prescribed GSTR 2-A for the relevant tax periods referred to the IGST import figures reflected in the ICE GATE portal of the Customs Department for all the months except those in which the errors have been committed. This clearly indicates that the respondents are aware of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The material on record discloses that the petitioner is engaged in the supply of machinery, mechanical appliances, parts etc., as well their erection, commissioning and installation. The petitioner had duly submitted its GST Returns in Form GSTR 3-B for the Financial Year 2017-18 (for short, the FY ). On 20.01.2021, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner calling for books of accounts in order to conduct a Desk Audit and directed the petitioner s attendance on 12.02.2021. In response to the said notice, the duly authorised representative of the petitioner, appeared before the 1st respondent on various dates and produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrors by submitting a revised input table but the same was rejected by the 1 st respondent-DCCT. Based on the audit report dated 27.08.2021, the show cause notice dated 17.01.2022 was issued under Section 73(1) of the KGST and CGST Acts, inter alia, proposing to disallow the ITC pertaining to the above mentioned errors committed by the petitioner, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents State. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the errors that were comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 2018 i.e., the months in which the errors have been committed. It is submitted that while adjudicating upon the liability of the petitioner, the Revenue is required to look beyond the Returns filed and take a more holistic view having regard to the books of accounts, other statutory forms such as ICE-GATE, etc. He submits that if the authorities were to do the same, it would be clearly apparent that petitioner has only committed a bona fide error and that, in fact, it is eligible to claim the disputed amount of ITC. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections submit that the petitioner cannot now, at this belated stage, be permitted to recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has been entered under the wrong column; the material on record also discloses that the said errors are entirely bona fide and inadvertent and that a lenient view is required to be taken, particularly since the tax periods involved relate to the very first year of the GST regime. 9. It is relevant to state that the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharti Airtel s case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. In the said case, the Apex Court observed that allowing the assessee therein to revise its returns at a belated stage would lead to a cascading effect on the chain of dealers under GST. It was also observed that there is no revenue loss to the assessee and that denial of permission to revise its returns would onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the limited relief of being permitted to make the necessary changes to its GSTR 3-B returns for the months of July 2017 and March 2018, particularly, since doing so would not cause any prejudice to the respondents-Revenue nor would it upset the chain of credit under the GST scheme and liberty is to be reserved in favour of the revenue to proceed with the impugned show cause notice dated 17.01.2022 after permitting the petitioner to make the necessary amendments to its GSTR 3-B Returns for the above tax periods. 13. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The petition is hereby partly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
