2020 (6) TMI 382 - HC - GST

Court directs response within 4 weeks for GST TRAN-1 revision petition, emphasizing procedural compliance over merits.

M/s SK Green Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

The Court disposed of the petition seeking directions to file a revision of GST TRAN-1 for Input Tax Credit, directing the respondent authorities to ... Permission to petitioner to file revision of GST TRAN-1 - section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - while the case of the petitioner is that mistake committed was procedural, the court considers appropriate not to entertain the petition at this stage - HELD THAT:- Whether there is a procedural lapse or otherwise, is the aspects to be gone into and decided by the competent authority, to which the petitioner has already addressed communication way back in August and September, 2019. The authority of the respondents department has not decided to respond to the same so far. It is only after the decision is rendered by the authorities, it will be open for the petitioner to take a further legal recourse in accordance with law - While not entertaining this petition and not touching the merit part of the case of the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are directed to respond to the communication of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petition disposed off. Issues:Petition seeking directions to file revision of GST TRAN-1 and allow Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Claim for credit of &8377; 16,07,556/- - Procedural lapse in filing GST TRAN 02 - Request to file GST TRAN 01 - Competent authority to decide on procedural lapse - Respondent State's duty to respond to communication - Disposal of petition with direction to respond within four weeks.Analysis:The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution sought directions for the petitioner to file a revision of GST TRAN-1 to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) of &8377; 16,07,556/- for goods held in stock as per section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had previously filed GST TRAN 02 claiming &8377; 11,29,000/- as credit due to a misunderstanding by their Accountant. The petitioner believed they were entitled to the entire credit amount by filing GST TRAN 01, resulting in a differential credit of &8377; 4,78,556/-. The petitioner argued that the specific right under section 140 of the CGST Act could not be denied due to a procedural mistake, citing a previous court decision supporting this stance.During the hearing, the petitioner's advocate highlighted that communications sent to the tax authorities in August and September 2019 had not been responded to, despite the passage of considerable time. The petitioner's advocate contended that the authorities should have responded based on a previous court decision from September 2019. The Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the Union requested time to obtain information from the authorities, emphasizing that direct approach to the department should have been made before resorting to a writ petition.The Court, after hearing both parties, noted that the petitioner had already claimed credit under GST TRAN 02, seeking to change it to TRAN 01 due to a procedural mistake. The Court decided not to entertain the petition at that stage, stating that the issue of procedural lapse and the permissibility of filing GST TRAN 01 should be decided by the competent authority. The Court directed the respondent authorities to respond to the petitioner's communication within four weeks, without delving into the merits of the case. The Court clarified that the disposal of the petition did not prevent the petitioner from approaching any authority or the Court after the authority's decision, if aggrieved.In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with a direction for the respondent authorities to respond within the specified timeline, allowing the petitioner to pursue further legal recourse based on the authority's decision. The petitioner's advocate was instructed to provide copies of the petition to the respective representatives of the respondents for communication of the Court's order.