TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n order affirming the demand of Rs. 2,11,69,253/- under Section 73(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "the Act") and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 21,16,925/- under Section 73 of the Act i.e., 10% of the demand raised by the Department. 2. The whole dispute arose on account of the error on the part of the petitioner while submitting its GST returns for the period July, 2017 i.e., at the stage when GST law was at its primitive stage upon being implemented with effect from 01.07.2017. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of submission of GST return for the period July, 2017, inadvertently while reflecting the amount of CGST and SGST Tax component, for CGST component amount of Rs. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reply has been filed by the petitioner before the respondent-authorities, without touching any of those contentions that the petitioner herein has raised in its reply, the respondent-authorities have in a mechanical manner passed the impugned order, dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-P1) confirming the demand of Rs. 2,11,69,253/- and also imposed penalty at the rate of 10% on the said amount. The entire reading of the impugned order would clearly reveal that none of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in its reply to the show cause notice have been dealt with and the authority concerned has passed the order in a routine manner. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the error as has arisen in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turns 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-3B Returns for the above tax periods." While making the said observations, the High Court has also passed the following directions: "13. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The petition is hereby partly allowed. (ii) The respondents are hereby directed to permit the petitioner to make necessary corrections to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t took note of similar decisions, rendered by the Orrisa High Court in Shiva Jyoti Construction Vs. The Chairperson, Central Board of Excise & Customs and Ors. MANU/OR/0522/2023 and the decision rendered by the Jharkhand High Court in Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. Vs. Goods and Services Tax Council and Ors. MANU/JH/1003/2022; and relying upon those judgments the Bombay High Court, in paragraph Nos. 20 to 22, has held as under: "20. On the interpretation of the provisions as made by us and the common thread running through the decisions as noted above, it would lead us to observe that the GST regime as contemplated under the GST Law unlike the prior regime, has evolved a scheme which is largely based on the electronic domain. The di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd applied by the Department. This necessarily would mean, that a bona fide, inadvertent error in furnishing details in a GST return needs to be recognized, and permitted to be corrected by the department, when in such cases the department is aware that there is no loss of revenue to the Government. Such free-play in the joint requires an eminent recognition. The department needs to avoid unwarranted litigation on such issues, and make the system more assessee friendly. Such approach would also foster the interest of revenue in the collection of taxes." The Bombay High Court while concluding made the following orders, which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: "23. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have no manner of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome to the rescue of the taxpayers, especially during the nascent stage of its legislation, has failed in respect of the petitioner to provide succor for the difficulty faced by it. ... ... 15. In view of the above, I set aside Ext. P7 and direct the competent amongst the respondents to facilitate revising of form GST TRAN-1 submitted by the petitioner on 01-09-2017 and to file form GST TRAN-2 by making necessary arrangements on the web portal. If in case the same is not possible, to permit the manual filing of such returns by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment." 9. In view of the aforesaid series of decisio....