2019 (7) TMI 141 - HC - GST

Court rectifies denial of credit for capital goods due to typographical error, emphasizes Nodal Officer intervention

The court set aside the denial of credit for capital goods in Form GST TRAN-1 due to a typographical error by the petitioner, directing respondent No.6 to ... Revision of Form GST-TRAN-1 - request of the petitioner to credit 50% of the capital goods for the period April 2017 to June 2017 in Form GST TRAN-1 denied - HELD THAT:- It is evident that figure mentioned in Form GST TRAN-1 appears to be a technical glitch arising out of the inadvertence of the petitioner. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.6 to re-consider the request of the petitioner for redressal of the grievances in accordance with law - the impugned order at Annexure-A is set aside - petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to denial of credit for capital goods in Form GST TRAN-1.Analysis:The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing and trading, challenged the denial of credit for 50% of capital goods in Form GST TRAN-1 for the period April 2017 to June 2017. The petitioner had registered under various acts and noticed an unavailed credit of Rs. 1,16,45,079 not entered in their ledger. Despite complaints and requests, the respondent No.6 rejected the request to revise the form, leading to this petition.Legal Arguments:The petitioner's counsel argued that the typographical error in Form GST TRAN-1, where zero was mentioned instead of the actual amount, was inadvertent and should be considered as a technical glitch. Citing a previous court order, it was emphasized that such errors require the intervention of the Nodal Officer as per circular instructions dated 03.04.2018.Respondent's Justification:The respondent's counsel justified the denial, stating that a typographical error does not qualify as a technical glitch warranting the Nodal Officer's intervention to address the petitioner's grievance.Court Decision:After hearing both parties, the court noted the technical glitch in the form was due to the petitioner's inadvertence. Referring to a previous judgment, the court highlighted the need for Nodal Officers to address such issues for a smooth transition under Section 140 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, directing respondent No.6 to reconsider the petitioner's request in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to appear before respondent No.6, and the Nodal Officer was tasked to expedite the redressal process.Conclusion:The court disposed of the writ petition, ordering a re-consideration of the petitioner's request for credit of capital goods, emphasizing the importance of addressing inadvertent errors through the Nodal Officer for a proper transitional arrangement under the law.