TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elangana State, to claim the credit of IGST of Rs. 7,87,328=78 or to refund the sum of Rs. 7,87,328=78 to the petitioner which is paid on the transactions which are not actually conducted, and pass such other order or orders .........." 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner is the taxable person under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the CGST Act') and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the APGST Act'), allotted with Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) 37AAPV7646A1ZT. The petitioner is also allotted to the Central State Tax Department and comes under the Bhimavaram Central GST Range headed by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax. The petitioner is entitled to file quarterly returns. The petitioner has been submitting the common returns and the details of outward supplies regularly both under the APGST Act, CGST Act and also under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the IGST Act') electronically through the common portal duly reporting the intra-state supplies of goods and services as mandated and also inter-state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avaram Range to either refund the amount in issue or adjust the same to the existing liabilities. The Superintendent has replied vide letter, dated 26.02.2021, directing the petitioner to follow the Circular CBEC-20/16/04/18-GST, dated 18.11.2019, which is relating to Section 54 of the CGST Act. The said letter of the Superintendent of CGST is wholly untenable, which is nothing but illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The time limit of two years from the date of payment of the amount in issue towards IGST specified in Section 54 of the CGST Act is not applicable to the present case. There is no possibility for the petitioner to follow the said Circular practically. Hence, the communication received from the Superintendent of Central GST is nothing but denial of the claim of the petitioner which is illegal, arbitrary and incorrect. It is also against the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India 111 STC 467 SC . Hence, it is urged that the communication of the second respondent, dated 26.02.2021, is liable to be set-aside and appropriate directions be given to the first and second respondents either permitting the petitioner to rectify....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Limited, Kandlakoya, Telangana but not M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai. So, under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion imposed, shall repay or return it. The amounts that were mistakenly paid, as above, cannot be taken as the amount payable legally to the respondents. He would further contend that by virtue of the Circular, dated 18.11.2019, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, with effect from 26.09.2019, permitted certain types of refunds through electronic mode only, which are listed in Para No.3 from (a) to (l) and the claim of the petitioner would not come under the said purview. Even otherwise, when Rule 97(A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 permitted manual filing, the respondents had no authority to restrict the filing of refunds through electronic mode only. If the respondents permit manual filing, the petitioner would have been in a position to submit his claim manually successfully. So, the inability of the petitioner to submit his claim successfu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the goods that are supplied by the petitioner is M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal, Telangana with specific GSTIN number. Admitted facts are that regarding the invoices that were generated in March, 2018 and two other invoices that were generated in June, 2018 and the credit note bearing No.10, while uploading the details and returns information in the GST common portal, the GSTIN of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai was keyed in instead of GSTIN of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya, Telangana. 13. As per Section 54 of the CGST Act, any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him, may make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The contention of the petitioner that the error surfaced only in the month of May, 2020 and when they made an attempt to rectify, the GST common portal did not permit them to do so. It was in this background, the petitioner claimed to have addressed a letter, dated 17.02.2021, to the respondents for which they issued a reply directing the petitioner to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt/appeal/any other order; l. Refund on account of "any other‟ ground or reason." 16. As verified from the column in Para No.3 of the Circular, the claim of the petitioner would not come under the said purview. Apart from these, when Rule 97A permits manual filing also, it is not known why the filing was restricted to electronically in the said Circular. So, the contention of the petitioner that on account of restricting the refund claims to electronically and as he noticed the error only in May 2020, he could not successfully submit the information for rectification appears to be tenable. Now the fact remains that the respondents are compelling the petitioner to follow the Circular of the year 2019 which is virtually impracticable to follow. At this juncture, for better appreciation, we would like to deal with various decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. In Pentacle Plant Machineries (second supra), the petitioner sought to issue a writ of Mandamus to rectify the mistake in GSTR-1 return, wherein instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh, GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh was mentioned. The Writ Petition was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed the Writ Petition. 22. In M/s. Comsol Energy Private Limited (sixth supra), the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad held that Article 265 of the Constitution of India provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law and as the amount of IGST collected by the Central Government is without authority of law, the Revenue is obliged to refund the amount erroneously collected. It was further held that Section 54 of the CGST Act is applicable only for claiming refund of any tax paid under the provisions of the CGST Act and/or the CGST Act and the amount so collected by the Revenue without authority of law is not considered as tax collected by them and therefore Section 54 is not applicable. In such circumstances, Section 17 of the Limitation Act is the appropriate provision for claiming refund of the amount paid to the Revenue under the mistake of law. 23. In Laxmi Organic Industries Limited v. Union of India and others WP No.7861/2021, Dt.30.11.2021 HC Bombay, the petitioner failed to upload 'Statement 5B' along with refund applications and he applied manually on 10.06.2021 and 22.06.2021 and they are returned with instructions to follow the Circular....